Agricultural Systems 49 (1995) 69-100

01995 Elsevier Science Limited

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0308-521X/95/$9.50 + .OO
0308-521X(94)00017-4

Adoption of Innovations by Costa Rican Livestock

Producers under Different Levels of Extension Intensity:
Predicted versus Observed Behaviour

Jonathan Wadsworth*
Escuela Centroamericana de Ganaderia, Apartado No. 7, Atenas, Costa Rica

(Received 10 June 1993; accepted 7 June 1994)

ABSTRACT
The development of eficient agricultural extension strategies is dependent
on the accurate prediction of farmer response to diverse extension messages
and methods of delivery. Most research on adoption behaviour has con-
centrated on farmer characteristics as the main determinants of adoption
rates. Thispaperfocuses attention on extension agency activities (EAA) as
an equally important variable.
Ex-ante studies of three farmer populations predicted the existence of
two distinct adoption scenarios: namely, managerial capacity (MC)
dependent, where farmer MC plays an important role in adoption and MC
independent, where the level of farmer MC does not appear to be involved
in the adoption process. An experiment involving 108 farmers divided
amongst four extension treatments was carried out to test the ex-ante
hypotheses. Of the nine system x technology combinations tested,Jive were
correctly predicted from the ex-ante model. This paper details reasons for
the models failure to predict accurately the four remaining cases. It is
concluded that not only farmer MC and EAA, but also variables associated
with economic climate, attributes of innovations, existence of structural
constraints and appropriateness of technologies should be incorporated into
the model in order to improve the predictability of adoption behaviour
based on ex-ante studies.

INTRODUCTION

In a previous paper (Wadsworth, 1993) the influence of the managerial

capacity (MC) of Costa Rican livestock farmers on knowledge, evaluation

* Present a.ddress: Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute, PO Box 7449 1, Nairobi, Kenya.

69
70 J. Waakworth

and practice of improved technologies was examined under uniform con-

ditions of extension agency activity (EAA). By means of a conceptual
model of technology flow into farm systems (Wadsworth, 1990~) causal
path analysis was used to predict how farmer MC might affect the adop-
tion process. A number of scenarios were hypothesised regarding the
extension approach most appropriate in order to encourage the uptake of
different types of technological innovations. This constituted the ex-ante
condition, prior to an experiment involving four different extension treat-
ments.
Wadsworth (199Oa) postulated that if farmer characteristics, such as
MC, are found to affect the adoption process in a differential and pre-
dictable manner then it should be possible to develop extension pro-
grammes which make use of market segmentation principles in order to
enhance the efficiency of public spending on agricultural extension. How-
ever, farmer characteristics are only one half of the equation. A recent
examination of the technology diffusion model (Brown et al., 1976; Brown,
1981), has concluded that where innovations are actively propagated by
government agencies the operational activities of the extension body are
more important in determining adoption rates than previously thought.
The diffusion of innovations should therefore no longer simply be con-
sidered as a consumer behaviour phenomenon, but should be approached
in a broader manner and include components of public and private insti-
tutional behaviour which affect the individuals access to new technology.

Fig. 1. Components of extension agency activity (EAA) likely to affect the flow of new
technology into farm systems.
 Adoption of innovations by livestock producers 71

This paper seeks to validate and further improve the model of tech-
nology flow by critically examining the part played by extension agency
activities (EAA) on changes in farmers knowledge, evaluation and prac-
tice of innovations by means of a direct experimental approach. A field
experiment was conducted which permitted the isolation of effects due
to EAA, MC and their interactions. The four main points at which EAA
is considered able to affect the flow of new technology are illustrated in
Fig. 1. This in effect presents the mirror image of the conceptual model
tested by Wadsworth (1993) which concentrated on components of farmer
MC which affect technology flow.

RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

The experiment took place in Costa Rica during 1987/88 and involved the
participation of 108 collaborating livestock producers representing three
different systems of production (beef, dual-purpose and intensive dairying)
who were allocated to four different extension treatments. The experiment
followed a 2-year period of surveys, farm monitoring by monthly visits
and data analysis in order to determine the appropriate extension mes-
sages and allocate MC values to each farmer. This preliminary work is
documented in greater detail by Wadsworth (1990a,b).

Treatments

The use of a systems approach in general terms and development of the

technology flow model (Wadsworth 1990a) made the identification of
experimental treatments a relatively simple and straightforward task. Fig-
ure 1 illustrates the four main points at which EAA is considered able to
affect the flow of new technology into farm systems.
An important implication of this model is that each component of EAA
can only, by their very nature, appear in this strictly cumulative sequence.
In other words it is inconceivable that an individual be trained in the practical
skills required by a given technology in the absence of factual knowledge
concerning its function. Hence, the experimental treatments were designed
by treating each component of EAA along the flow of technology path-
way (Fig. 1) as a pre-condition for application of the succeeding one.
?? Treatment A: This treatment was included as a control in order to assess
the effect of background extension activity not generated by the
experiment and to which all producers in the zone would be expected to
be equally exposed, i.e. mass media channels, other extension agencies
and notably the diffusion effect from other producers involved in the
72 J. Wadsworth

extension experiment at higher levels of extension intensity. Farmers

allocated to treatment A were offered no extension input whatsoever
regarding any of the three improved practices. In this way treatment A
endeavoured to simulate the case of farmers found in an area where an
extension agency operates but who were not themselves directly targeted
by extensionists. The probability of diffusion is increased by virtue of
EAA which selects and decodes scientific research findings making new
technology at least theoretically available to producers.
?? Treatment B: Farmers allocated to treatment B were given written
information in the form of illustrated bulletins specially produced for
the experiment on each of the three improved practices. This informa-
tion was delivered personally by the enumerators approximately every
3 months. Enumerators were instructed and trained to avoid specific
reference to the innovations contained in the extension messages even in
informal conversations since the object of this treatment was to investi-
gate the producers ability to become informed by exposure to written
factual information only.
Treatment B therefore represents the case of producers located within
an area served by an extension agency and who receive periodic bulletins
but no direct personal contact with extensionists. According to the pro-
posed model (Fig. 1) this aspect of EAA would be expected to enhance
farmers probability of reception due to the delivery and distribution of
information. Only two of the 108 farmers were unable to read (Wads-
worth, 1989), in these cases each had a son who read the document to
them.
?? Treatment C: This treatment included a component of personal inter-
action and persuasive communication designed to support the factual
knowledge of each innovation and assist the development of a positive
attitude towards its utilisation on the farm. At 1 month after receiving
the extension bulletin each farmer was visited by the enumerator and a
full morning or afternoon (4-5 h) was spent discussing the factual con-
tent of the bulletin, answering specific questions, stressing the relative
advantages of the technology and suggesting how it might fit into the
existing production system. In general the aim was to motivate the
producer and encourage a positive evaluation of the innovation.

This treatment ensured that producers were fully exposed to a func-

tional knowledge of the innovation and that all the arguments in favour of
adoption were explained within the context of actual farm conditions. In
this way the extension policy of literature distribution complemented by
the single follow-up visit was represented.
 Adoption of innovations by livestock producers 73

?? Treatment D: The final and most intensive level of EAA was treatment
D which incorporated an element of practical skills training. At 1
month after the follow-up visit aimed at increasing levels of evaluation a
training day was held on the farm of one of the treatment D partici-
pants. All treatment D producers were invited and elaborate prepara-
tion including multiple reminders, free transport and refreshments was
undertaken to ensure high attendance rates. This was essential to
maintain the experimental design since any treatment D individual not
receiving practical training would thereafter become a member of
treatment C by default with respect to that particular innovation. The
practical skills training sessions were planned to last approximately 5 h
in total and consisted of a short introductory talk followed by practical
training in smaller groups. Not only practical skills but also a revision
of knowledge and further development of positive attitudes inevitably
formed part of each session.
The four treatments may be summarised as follows:
Treatment A = Control
Treatment B = Knowledge
Treatment C = Knowledge + Evaluation
Treatment D = Knowledge + Evaluation + Training

Allocation of producers between treatments

On completion of the dynamic survey year in September 1987 the full

annual farm data were used to calculate the return to management and
investment (RMI) for each farm (Wadsworth, 1990a) which was used as a
proxy measure of MC. For each zone the 36 producers were ranked in
order of MC and divided into low (L), medium (M) and high (H) MC
categories. Farmers were semi-randomly allocated between the four
extension treatments so that each treatment x MC combination contained
three farmers.
Although production objectives were not specifically studied all farmers
were considered to be commercial producers with less than 10% gross
farm output consumed directly by the farm household, the remainder
being sold. Farmers had a high involvement in the money economy and
rated cost-benefit aspects of technologies as a principal factor in deter-
mining their adoption decisions.
The technologies selected for use in the experiment had previously been
the subject of an ex-ante investigation into farmers knowledge, evaluation
and practice (Wadsworth, 1993). This information was used as a point of
reference in preparation of the precise recommendations, elaboration of
14 J. Wadsworth

bulletins, training the enumerators and devising the practical skills ses-
sions with a view to orientating each extension message to farmers needs.
None of the participating farmers had been involved in organised
extension programmes during the 5 years prior to the start of the experi-
ment. However some previous sporadic contacts with extension agents
were reported by some producers (Wadsworth, 1990b). This could be
expected to influence farmers attitudes to the field staff and the extension
messages during the experiment. However the extension experiment was
preceded by a full year of data collection with monthly visits to each farm
during which time farmer confidence and rapport with the field staff
developed to excellent levels, Thus equalising starting conditions with
respect to familiarity and farmer interaction with official institutions.

Chronology of the extension experiment

The experiment commenced in October 1987 with the distribution of bul-

letins concerning the first extension message in each zone and continuing
through to September 1988 when the final sets of ex-post data were col-
lected. Due to the occurrence of the dry season from December to May
the order of presentation of the extension messages was arranged so as to
take advantage of the problems currently experienced by producers in
order to demonstrate the potential benefits of the alternative technology as
follows, in the beef and dual purpose zones: (i) dry season feeding, (ii)
identification and cow records, (iii) mineral supplementation. In the dairy
zone: (i) calf rearing, (ii) identification and cow records, (iii) heat detec-
tion.
An additional facet of the experiment was the inclusion of a blanket
extension message offered at the level of treatment D, to A, B and C
treatment farmers, and at the level of treatment C to treatment D pro-
ducers. This blanket technology confined itself to the use of general herd
records such as animal inventory, births, mortalities, etc. and consisted of
a specifically prepared record book which producers were trained to
complete, maintain and interpret. The main reason for introducing the
blanket technical message was two-fold; primarily to offer some stimulus
to treatment A, B and C participants who may have become aware that
their neighbours allocated to treatment D were taken on trips to training
sessions and secondly as a plausible pretext for maintaining contact by
regular visits to all farms in order to carry out ex-post evaluations at the
end of the experiment.
It should be noted that on completion of ex-post data collections, which
marked the end of the experiment, treatment A producers were given all
the materials which had been distributed amongst the other treatments
 Adoption of innovations by livestock producers 75

and also received additional explanatory and training visits from the enu-
merators regarding each technology as did treatment B and C producers.
This activity was considered the only responsible way of repaying the
unwitting collaboration in an investigation where, if given the choice,
most producers would have elected to be subjected to treatment D.

Ex-post data collection

Ex-post data were collected between July and September 1988 with one
technology being considered at each monthly visit. The recording sche-
dules used were identical to those originally completed in the ex-ante
investigation with the addition of two open questions put to treatment B,
C and D farmers only. These asked for participants general opinions
regarding the technical recommendations given during the programme
and the reasons, if any for not having adopted some or all components of
the innovation in question.
Ex-post indices were calculated in the same way as ex-ante indices
(Wadsworth, 1993) however, points were awarded where farmers expres-
sed a definite intention to modify farm practice at some point in the near
future and where reasons for not having adopted already were not attri-
butable to disinterest. For example, some producers had not previously
used sugar cane for cattle feeding but had planted it at the start of the
rainy season in 1988 in anticipation of feeding it in the dry season of 1988/
89. Hence, although cattle were not actually fed sugar cane during the dry
period of 1987/88, the farmers intention indicated adoption of the tech-
nology even though the actual implementation could only occur after the
forage had grown.

Statistical methods

Changes in the knowledge, evaluation and practice indices were calculated

by subtraction of ex-ante from ex-post values. In the main, changes were
found to be positive although cases did arise where negative change was
recorded.
Initial analysis indicated the presence of strong negative relationships
between ex-ante indices and the change in index values. This is a logical
consequence of the methodology caused by defining indices with max-
imum ceiling values since those farmers returning high ex-ante index
scores had less potential for further improvement than farmers with low
ex-ante indices. Hence it was necessary to include the ex-ante index as a
covariate in the analysis of changes in index values over the experimental
period.
76 J. Wadsworth

Due to the non-orthogonality of the data resulting from the few farmers
who abandoned the programme before starting the extension experiment
and the uncontrollable migration of producers from treatment D to C the
final data were not as tidily balanced as had been planned.
The effects of covariate, MC and ET on changes in knowledge, evalua-
tion and practice of each innovation were investigated using multiple
regression and analysis of variance. A sequence of multiple regression
models were derived, each one designed to test the significance of at least
one variable (Draper and Smith, 1966). The order in which the variables are
introduced into such models is critical to the interpretation of each ana-
lysis. For example where the covariate was found to be statistically significant
this variable was obliged to be included first in all subsequent models in
order to test the effect of the other variables after having accounted for
the influence of the covariate on the dependent variable. As a general
guide variance ratios may only safely be declared to be statistically sig-
nificant when the possible confounding effect of all other variables has
already been accounted for in the regression. In this way MC could
only be declared significant when preceded by ET in the analysis of
variance and vice versa. Notwithstanding the above guide, this techni-
que is largely interactive and requires that data be analysed intelligently
with each step being derived from interpretation of the previous one.
The mathematical procedures were carried out using the statistical
programme GENSTAT (Lane et al., 1987).
In order to further explain the differences identified by the analyses of
variance, tables of treatment means were constructed and standard errors
of differences (SEDs) calculated. Where the covariate had been found to
be statistically significant all means were adjusted for covariance in order
to provide a common basis for comparison.
In some cases the SEDs are larger than their corresponding treatment
means (Tables 3,6 and 9) indicating high variability in the data. Although
ex-ante index data were normally distributed the effect of the EAA did not
follow a continuous pattern in these cases producing large and discrete
increases in ex-post treatment means. Hence changes in index values (ex-
post minus ex-ante) were affected in the same way. Presentation of the
data is further complicated by the occurrence of negative values of the
change in index scores which logically shift the arithmetic means towards
zero but do not affect the values of their corresponding SEDs. Usage of
the selected tests is not compromised by this.
As already mentioned the final distribution of participating farmers
between the ETs and the level of the MC was unbalanced; this meant that
different SEDs had to be derived for every pair of means to be compared.
In order to avoid the inclusion of large matrices of SEDs the mean SEDs
 Adoption of innovations by livestock producers 77

for common groups of comparisons were calculated and are reported

in the tables of means. However, it should be noted that all quoted
significant differences as demonstrated by t-tests were derived by using the
specific SEDs unique to each pair of means.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Analysis of ex-ante causal models (Wadsworth, 1993) suggested that four

of the nine system x innovation combinations would be expected to
represent scenarios where adoption is dependent on MC. Where a technol-
ogy is thought to be MC dependent (MCD) a stratified extension
approach based on farmer MC will be the optimum method of allocating
scarce extension resources. On the other hand, five of the nine combinations
were predicted to be MC independent (MCI), in such cases where MC is
not involved in the causal mechanisms a policy which treats all farmers as
having similar access to the technology would be most appropriate. The third
column of Table 1 summarises the predictions made from ex-ante studies.
The ex-post results following the extension experiment reported below
are also given in Table 1. This indicates how five of the cases were correctly
predicted, whilst in four cases adoption behaviour did not occur as would
have been expected. From the point of view of understanding the tech-
nology flow system better, and improving the working model, these four
cases will be discussed in the rest of this paper as a means of examining the
reasons for failure of the causal modelling methodology.

TABLE 1
Comparison of Predicted versus Observed Adoption Behaviour Exhibited by Costa Rican
Livestock Producers

Production Innovation Predicted Observed

system (Wadsworth, (extension
1993) experiment)

Beef Sugar cane for dry season feeding MCI MCI

Beef Cow identification and record cards MCI MCI
Beef Mineral supplementation MCD MCI
Dual-purpose Feeding strategies for dry season milk
production MCD MCD
Dual-purpose Cow identification and record cards MCI MCI
Dual-purpose Mineral supplementation MCI MCD
Dairy Early weaning of calves and heifer rearing MCD MCD
Dairy Cow identification and record cards MCI MCD
Dairy Improved heat detection techniques MCI MCD
78 J. Waakworth

Mineral supplementation in the beef zone

The analysis of variance of the change in farmers knowledge of mineral

supplementation (Table 2) demonstrated significant effects due to ex-ante
knowledge (covariate) and ET at P < O-01. Comparison of ET means
(Table 3) indicates a trend for a greater increase in knowledge with
increasing EAA since it was found that treatments B, C and D evoked
significantly higher changes in index values than treatment A. Further-
more, treatment D exhibited superiority over treatment B but only at the
10% level of probability.
MC was not found to influence the change in the knowledge of mineral
supplementation (Tables 2 and 3) overall, in contrast to the significant
relationship found to exist by x2 analysis before the start of the experiment
(Wadsworth, 1993). The suggestion off an interaction between ET and

(b) Evaluation

2 (c) Practice
1

-c
A B C D
Extension treatment

Fig. 2. Change in index values of mineral supplementation technology by low (n), med-
) and high (m) MC beef farmers following exposure to different extension treatments.
 Adoption of innovations by livestock producers 79

TABLE 2
Level of Probability of Variance Ratios Derived from Analysis of Variance of the Change
in Index Values of Beef Producers with Respect to Mineral Supplementation

Source of variation d.J Index value

Knowledge Evaluation Practice

Covariate 1 0.01 0.01 NS

Extension treatment (ET) 3 0.01 0.01 0.05
Managerial capacity (MC) 2 NS 0.25 0.25
ET x MC interaction 6 0.25 NS NS

u Ex-ante values.

TABLE 3
Mean Change in Index Values by Level of Managerial Capacity and Extension Treatment
Beef Zone Mineral Supplementation

Index Extension Managerial capacity SE ET

treatment dif means
Low Medium High

Knowledge A 4.313 1.426 0.075 1.309 0.396

Adjusted B 1.269 4.000 1.986 1.460 2.290
means C 4,055 3.310 1.418 1.266 3.314
D 3.672 1.902 4.885 2.083 3.850
SE dif 1.568 1.602 1.424 0.886
MC means 2.368 2.778 1.858 0.928

Evaluation A 4.126 2.023 0.775 1.456 0.811

Adjusted B 4.952 4.016 2.601 1.566 3.625
means _ C 2.386 3.285 1.351 1.314 2.599
D 3.956 5.484 3.888 2.253 4.290
SE difb 1.703 1.783 1.542 0.907
MC means 2.302 3.288 2.105 0.850
Practice A 0.000 0.233 a.700 0.594 -0.156
Recorded B 0.350 0.500 0.225 0.662 0.325
means C 0.700 0.620 0.600 0.596 0.650
D 0.700 1.400 1.ooo 0.937 1.025
SE dif 0.722 0.722 0.645 0.353
MC means 0.445 0.564 0.182 0.323

Change in indices was derived by subtraction of ex-ante from ex-post index scores.
b Standard error of difference between any two means reported in the table are means of
individual standard errors of differences between all relevant pairs of means.
Where ex-ante indices were found to have a significant effect on ex-post values (see Table 2)
means were adjusted to account for covariance. Unadjusted means as originally recorded
have been used for cases where the covariate was not statistically significant.
80 J. Wadsworth

MC albeit at a very low level of probability (P < 0.25, Table 2) prompted

further scrutiny of the different treatment means shown in Table 3.
Analysis by t-test showed a significant difference in treatments D and C
over B and A within the low MC category; the absence of any significant
differences within the medium MC group, and in the case of high MC
producers that treatment D produced significantly higher changes in
knowledge than any other of the three treatments (Fig. 2). These results
may be interpreted as follows; low MC farmers are unable to take any
significant advantage of treatment B (written information only) but do
respond to the higher EAA associated with treatment C. However, no
further advantage of the specific training element contained in treatment
D is apparent. In the case of medium MC producers the absence of sta-
tistically significant differences indicates that all producers react similarly
to all treatments including the control treatment A, thus indicating that
they were able to increase their knowledge by minimal or zero formal
contact with extension, although the rising trend from treatment A to B
should not be ignored. With respect to the high MC farmers they would
appear to be the only group endowed with the ability to take additional
advantage of treatment D with respect to knowledge accumulation.
An almost identical result was found when change in evaluation indices
were analysed (Tables 2 and 3). Again treatments B, C and D produced a
significantly greater response than the control treatment A in overall
terms.
The change in practice of mineral supplementation by beef producers
was not dependent upon ex-ante practice indices as demonstrated by the
absence of a statistical significance of the covariate, the only significant
effect revealed by analysis of variance being that of ET (Table 2). ET
means (Table 3) show an upward trend in improvement of mineral prac-
tices with increasing EAA, treatments D and C being significantly superior
to treatment A by t-test (P < 0.05).
Comparisons within MC levels revealed only one significant difference
which occurred between treatments D and A in the high MC group (P <
0.05). This was entirely due to the reduction, for financial reasons, of
mineral supplementation by one high MC producer allocated to treatment
A. It is therefore true to say that the change in practice was unaffected by
the level of MC.
The above conclusion raises a number of important issues, not least
due, to the ex-ante prediction that MC acts upon knowledge which in turn
influences both the evaluation and practice of mineral supplementation
(Wadsworth, 1993). As seen above, MC is involved in the response of
producers of different levels of EAA in terms of knowledge and evaluation
but notably not with respect to practice. This is unexpected since the
 Adoption of innovations by livestock producers 81

TABLE 4
Reasons Given for Non-adoption of Mineral Supplementation Technology by Beef
Producers

Number

Farmers exposed (treatments B, C and D) 24 (100)

Adoptersh 6 (25)
Non-adoptersc 18 (75)
Reasons for non-adoption
Shortage of money 9 (50)
Lethargy, not necessaryd 5 (28)
Undecided, still thinking 4 (22)

Treatments B, C and D farmers were asked why they did not use at least some of the
recommended practices contained in the extension message.
b Farmers known to employ at least some of the recommended practices are referred to as
adopters although this covers a wide range of technology use.
(Non-adopters refers to producers who stated that they had not changed the farm prac-
tice of the technology in question over the experimental period and do not employ sig-
nificant features of the recommended practices.
Farmers described themselves as being lethargic (dejado) in not having adopted the
technology. This expression implies that they subscribe to the potential benefits but have
not yet done anything about it. (It clearly indicates that the farmer is not sufficiently con-
vinced to take action or is unable to do so for a reason he is not prepared to give.)

potential for improvement was found to be high as indicated by the low

ex-ante practice indices (Wadsworth, 1990b) and the relative simplicity of
the technology.
The most plausible explanation is the presence of some other factor or
group of factors acting to constrain adoption of the technology. In order
to attempt to clarify the position the reasons given by producers for
non-modification of mineral supplementation practices were scrutinised
(Table 4).
The most important cause of non-adoption was due to insufficient cash
resources to enable the purchase of mineral supplements. This does not
indicate a low economic advantage of the innovation, which in fact
represented a highly profitable intervention at the time of the experiment,
but rather a question of cash flow difficulties. The beef zone represents a
relatively extensive production system with emphasis on low input whilst
accepting low output. The financial climate surrounding beef production
in Costa Rica during the 1980s has provided little incentive to intensify
and the combined effect of stagnant beef prices and increasing production
costs have progressively eroded the already small profit margins. Hence,
the option of spending scarce cash resources on mineral supplements, the
82 J. Wadsworth

financial benefits of which will not be realised until at least 18 months into
the future, tends to be given low priority by farmers whose chief concerns
are more short term such as payment of labour, vaccines, essential fencing,
etc. Due to this widespread depression of the beef sector it is not unrea-
sonable to consider the cost of inputs as a structural constraint outside the
direct control of the majority of producers and therefore to acknowledge
that extension will be largely unsuccessful in affecting farm level practice
of such technologies under these circumstances.

Mineral supplementation in the dual-purpose zone

The change in the knowledge of mineral supplementation by dual purpose

farmers was dependent upon original ex-ante knowledge as demonstrated
by the significance (P < 0.05) of the covariate in the analysis of variance
(Table 5). This analysis also indicated a highly significant influence of ET
(P < 0.001) but no general effect due to the level of MC. All ETs were
found to produce significantly greater increases in knowledge than the
control treatment A at P < O-05 by t-test, also that treatment D was sig-
nificantly greater than treatment B (P < O-05). This trend for an increas-
ing change in knowledge with rising EAA intensity is apparent in Table 6
and Fig. 3.
A comparison of treatment means within MC groups by t-test analysis
(Table 6) demonstrates that in the case of medium and high MC, treat-
ments B, C and D all gave improvements in knowledge signScantly
superior to (P < O-05) treatment A. However, this was not true for low
MC producers where the only significant difference (P < 0.05) occurred
between treatments C and A (Fig. 3). This suggests that low MC pro-
ducers were relatively less able to take advantage of the limited EAA to
which they were exposed by treatment B.

TABLE 5
Level of Probability of Variance Ratios Derived from Analysis of Variance of Change in
Index Values of Dual-Purpose Producers with Respect to Mineral Supplementation

Source of variation d$ Index value

Knowledge Evaluation Practice

Covariatea 1 0.05 0.001 0.00 1

Extension treatment (ET) 3 0.001 0.10 0.00 1
Managerial capacity (MC) 2 NS 0.10 0.10
ET x MC interaction 5 NS NS 0.25

a Ex-ante values.
 Adoption of innovations by livestock producers 83

In terms of changes in evaluation indices the analysis of variance

demonstrated a highly significant effect due to the covariate (P < 0.001)
and suggested some influence due to both ET and MC at the P < 0.10
level of significance (Table 5). In spite of such low probability by analysis
of variance the graphical representation (Fig. 3) of the data presented in
Table 6 clearly warranted closer examination using t-tests. This revealed
that treatments B, C and D all produced significantly greater change from
treatment A (P < 0.05) and that the high MC producers improved their
evaluation of the technology more than low MC individuals (P < O-05).
Consideration of the differences between treatments within levels of MC
(Fig. 3) illustrates how higher farmer MC is able to compensate for lower
exposure to EAA, with high MC producers reaching maximum change in
evaluation when exposed to treatment B; medium MC farmers requiring
treatment C to evoke the same increase in the index and low MC indivi-
duals being unable to substantially improve their evaluation scores even

TABLE 6
Mean Change in Index Values by Level of Managerial Capacity and Extension Treatmenta
Dual-purpose Zone, Mineral Supplementation

Index Extension Managerial capacity SE ET

treatment dif means
Low Medium High
--___
Knowledge A 0.109 0.184 -0.620 1.450 0.012
Adjusted B 1.091 3.088 2.356 1.076 2.190
meansC C 2.789 2.685 3.052 1.089 2.864
D d 3.449 3.494 1.227 3.532
SE difb 1.136 1.123 1.336 0.657
MC means 1.746 2.155 2.530 0.737
Evaluation A a.154 0.362 -0.751 2.059 0.064
Adjusted B 1.326 1.324 4.001 1.494 2.415
meansr C 1.469 3.090 3.902 1.655 2.567
D d 3.921 1.710 1.749 3.158
SE difb 1.594 1.724 1.913 1.057
MC means 1.118 1.917 3.131 0.906
Practice A a.454 0.05 1 a.67 1 1.450 a.193
Adjusted B a.098 0.784 2.030 1.070 1.067
means C 2.085 1.853 1.891 1.091 2.028
D d 3.014 7.079 I.260 4.414
SE difb 1.135 1.141 1.320 0.803
MC means 0.950 1.276 2.626 0.834

0.b~cSee footnotes to Table 3.

No data were available for low MC producers exposed to treatment D in the dual-
purpose zone.
84 J. Wadsworth

7i (c) Practice
6
5
4
3
2
1

-I

A B C D
Extension treatment

Fig. 3. Change in index values of mineral supplementation technology by low (Cl), med-
) and high (m) MC dual-purpose farmers following exposure to different extension
treatments.

are more short term such as payment of labour, vaccines, essential fencing,
etc. Due to this widespread depression of the beef sector it is not unrea-
sonable to consider the cost of inputs as a structural constraint outside the
direct control of the majority of producers and therefore to acknowledge
that extension will be largely unsuccessful in affecting farm level practice
of such technologies under these circumstances.

Mineral supplementation in the dual-purpose zone

The change in the knowledge of mineral supplementation by dual purpose

farmers was dependent upon original ex-ante knowledge as demonstrated
by the significance (P < 0.05) of the covariate in the analysis of variance
(Table 5). This analysis also indicated a highly significant influence of ET
 Adoption of innovations by livestock producers 85

control treatment A (P < 0.05). Furthermore, treatment D produced sig-

nificantly greater changes than treatment B at P < O-05(Table 6). The
mean effect of ET continued to increase over the range of treatments from
A to D with no sign of diminishing returns to EAA. This is probably due
to the considerable scope for improvement of all producers in the sample
as shown by low ex-ante practice indices (Wadsworth, 1990b).
A comparison of MC means demonstrated a clearly significant (P <
O-05)superiority of high MC over low MC (Table 6) with the medium MC
group taking an intermediate position. Hence, in general terms the extent
of improvement in the technical practices employed at farm level increased
with higher farmer MC. This is in contrast to the expected result predicted
by causal path analysis (Wadsworth, 1993) where MC was found to play
no part in the model under ex-ante conditions of negligible EAA. The
apparent importance of MC on adoption behaviour demonstrated by the
experiment is an important finding since EAA clearly favoured high MC
individuals at the expense of low MC farmers. Hence, some other factor
or group of variables produced a similar result to the progressive farmer
and the trickle down approach already critically discussed (Wadsworth,
1990a).
It is possible that MC was not important in the ex-ante analysis due
to the low but highly variable means recorded for all ex-ante indices
especially knowledge which was insufficient for even the high MC produ-
cers to enable a selection of technical alternatives. In other words, a
minimum threshold of awareness and functional understanding may be
an essential pre-condition which permits the differences in MC to be
exhibited. During the experiment this minimum condition was met within
the sample and consequently high MC producers were able to take greater
advantage than farmers endowed with lower MC. It is tempting to hypo-
thesise that lower MC individuals require greater EAA to push them
through their adoption threshold. This idea is supported by evidence from
comparisons within levels of MC (Fig. 3c) where treatment B did not
evoke a significant improvement in the practice of low MC producers but
that treatment C did produce a response (P < 0.05).
Medium MC farmers demonstrated an intermediate reaction to the
intensity of EAA exhibiting a linear trend of increasing change in mineral
supplementation practice (Fig 3~). In the case of the high MC group
however, the same response was produced by exposure to treatment B
with no additional benefit attributable to treatment C (Fig. 3c) thus indi-
cating a lower adoption threshold. When high MC farmers were exposed
to treatment D an extremely large second order type increment in practice
occurred which was significantly different to treatment C (P < 0.05). This
leads to the conclusion that under the conditions which prevailed during
86 J. Wadsworth

TABLE 7
Reasons Given for Non-adoption of Mineral Supplementation Technology by Dual-
Purpose Producers

Number %

Farmers exposed (treatments B, C and D) 28 (100)

Adoptersb 11 (39)
Non-adoptersc 17 (61)
Reasons for non-adoption
Shortage of money 8 (47)
Lethargy, not necessaryd 5 (29)
Undecided, still thinking 4 (24)

a~b.cSee footnotes to Table 4.

dOne treatment A producer acquired a copy of the extension bulletin from a neighbour
and effectively migrated to treatment B.

the experiment only high MC producers were able to take full advantage
of the highest intensity ET. Such an observation was also noted in the case
of dry season feeding within this zone.
It is possible that, as in the case of dry season feeding, high MC pro-
ducers were more able to organise the practical application of the tech-
nology at farm level. Farmers giving a shortage of cash resources as the
main reason for non-adoption (Table 7) may also have implied that their
evaluation of the relative advantage of mineral supplementation was not
high, thus underlining the important role played by the component of
evaluation in the adoption process. The remarkable second order
improvement in the practice of high MC farmers exposed to treatment D
begs the question as to whether the use of a more intense hypothetical
treatment Ewould permit medium MC producers to equal the changes in
practice made by high MC individuals.

Identification and cow records in the dairy zone

The analysis of variance of the changes in the knowledge of this technol-

ogy by dairy farmers as a result of the experiment revealed no significant
effects other than that of the covariate (P < O-001, Table 8). It is probable
that the blanket extension treatment interfered with the planned differ-
ences between treatments due to farmer initiated discussions at the train-
ing sessions. This resulted in no significant differences between any of the
four treatments in terms of knowledge acquisition (Table 9; Fig. 4a).
With respect to the change in the evaluation, some evidence from ana-
lysis of variance (Table 8) exists to suggest that ET (P < 0.10) and ET x MC
 Adoption of innovations by livestock producers 87

interaction (P < 0.10) may exert an influence. Comparison of ET means

(Table 9) by t-test showed treatment C to produce significantly greater
changes in evaluation than treatment A (P < O-05) thus indicating the
importance of personal contact and persuasion in changing attitudes.

TABLE 8
Level of Probability of Variance Ratios Derived from Analysis of Variance of Change in
Index Values of Dairy Producers with Respect to Identification and Cow Records

Source of variation d.j: Index value

Knowledge Evaluation Practice

Covariate 1 0.001 0.01 0.01

Extension treatment (ET) 3 NS 0.10 0.001
Managerial capacity (MC) 2 NS NS NS
ET x MC interaction 6 NS 0.10 0.10

TABLE 9
Mean Change in Index Values by Level of Managerial Capacity and Extension Treat-
ment. Dairy Zone Identification and Cow Records

Index Extension Managerial capacity SE ET

treatment dif means
Medium High
___~
Knowledge A 1.083 2.888 0.990 0.891 1.651
Adjusted B 2.746 2.195 3.027 1.132 2.666
means C 2.751 1.363 2.193 0.986 2.084
D 2.194 I.779 2.565 0.913 2.192
SE dif 1.078 0.958 0.878 0.557
MC means 2.157 2.075 2.166 0.350

Evaluation A a.210 0.362 -0.448 1.152 -0,107

Adjusted B -1.068 1.111 1.933 1.402 0.759
means C 2.291 1.506 1.266 1.258 1.653
D 2.076 -1.278 2.124 1.214 0.976
SE difb 1.360 I.288 1.145 0.745
MC means 0.783 0,366 1.193 0.638

Practice A -0.693 0.254 -1.317 I.544 4.606

Adjusted B 4.216 2.909 2.675 I.891 3.215
means C 3.748 3.979 2.766 1.693 3.465
D 4.600 1.392 3.133 I.560 2.065
SE difb I.787 1.633 1.497 0.938
MC means 2.900 1.304 1.754 0,871

a,b~See footnotes to Table 3.

88 J. Wadsworth

The pattern of response to increasing levels of EAA (Fig. 4b) demon-

strates an upward trend with a tendency for higher MC groups to reach
maximum response at lower intensity ET. For example within treatment B
the high MC producers returned significantly greater increases in evalua-
tion indices (P < O-10) than low MC farmers by t-test, whilst within other
treatments no such differences were observed (Table 9).
The strange result associated with medium MC producers exposed to
the extension treatment D requires further comment (Fig. 4b) in order to
explain its divergence from the trend. Closer inspection of the data
revealed that this MC x ET combination contained two farmers with very
small herds (10 and 15 cows), both these individuals regarded identifica-
tion and individual cow records to be largely superfluous and stated that
they were able to retain all the information relevant to each animal with-
out the need for written records.
The effect of ET on the practice of the technology was found to be
highly significant (P < O*OOl)by analysis of variance (Table 8). The

(a) Knowledge

-21
A B C D
Extension treatment

Fig. 4. Change in index values of mineral supplementation technology by low (I-J), med-
) and high (m) MC beef farmers following exposure to different extension treatments.
 Adoption of innovations by livestock producers 89

results shown in Table 9 and Fig. 4 tell the same story as found in the beef
and dual-purpose zones in that all farmers with the exception of treatment
A were able to improve record keeping technology equally well regardless
of MC. Again it would appear that the major constraint to adoption was
due to the physical unavailability of cow cards and practical know-how
for their application. However, this similarity between zones hides a major
underlying difference. Unlike the other two system types the causal path
analysis with respect to cow records in the dairy zone predicted the influ-
ence of producer MC on adoption (Wadsworth, 1993) whereas the above
results indicate that this was not in fact the case. Within the beef and dual
purpose zones the ex-ante practice of identification and cow record tech-
nologies was generally low to non-existent as shown by index values, with
only 3% and 12% of beef and dual purpose farmers, respectively, using
cow record cards. Hence it was not surprising to find that, under such
conditions of minimum technology use, no relationship existed with
respect to farmer MC.
In contrast the ex-ante situation in the dairy zone presented a much
more sophisticated set of circumstances with greater awareness and
experience in the use of individual cow records and although inputs such
as cow cards were currently not widely available the higher MC producers
had been able to acquire unused stocks from defunct technical assistance
programmes once operated by banks or Ministry of Agriculture; alter-
natively some individuals had arranged to have their own record cards
printed.
When the extension treatments were applied, even the minimal intensity
treatment B evoked high levels of adoption regardless of MC since the

TABLE 10
Reasons Given for Non-adoption of Identification and Cow Records Technology by
Dairy Producers

Enumeration Record.5

Number % Number %

Farmers exposed (treatments B, C and I)) 24 (100) 24 (100)

Adopters 13 (54) 20 (83)
Non-adopters II (46) 4 (17)
Reasons for non-adoption
Not necessary, few cows 8 (64) 3 (75)
Poor technical understanding _ I (25)
Undecided, may adopt 5 (36)

/, See footnotes to Table 4.

90 J. Wadsworth

major structural constraint had been lifted. These conclusions clearly

support the hypothesis that the prohibitory effect of structural constraints
may be modified by the influence of farmer EAA.
At the end of the experiment only 17% of farmers exposed to treat-
ments B, C and D had failed to adopt cow cards (Table 10) which is

TABLE 11
Level of Probability of Variance Ratios Derived from Analysis of Variance of Change in
Index Values of Dairy Producers with Respect to Heat Detection

Source of variation d$ Index value

Knowledge Evaluation Practice

Covariate 1 0.001 0.01 NS

Extension treatment (ET) 3 0.00 1 0.01 0.01
Managerial capacity (MC) 2 0.10 0.10 NS
ET x MC interaction 6 0.10 0.25 NS

TABLE 12
Mean Change in Index Values by Level of Managerial Capacity and Extension Treat-
ment. Dairy Zone, Heat Detection

Index Extension Managerial capacity SE ET

treatment difb means
Low Medium High

Knowledge A a.624 0.566 a.656 0.569 4.418

Adjusted B 1.510 2.414 3.528 0.708 2.295
means! C 0.687 0.799 2.380 0.548 1.599
D 2.278 2.658 3.340 0.723 2.549
SE difb 0.695 0.624 0.612 0.417
MC means 0.875 1.611 1.675 0640
Evaluation A -1.297 a.084 -1.114 1.358 -1.089
Adjusted B a.843 a.136 3.983 1.626 1.510
means C 1.581 1.724 2.976 1.294 2.278
D 2.540 2.494 2.938 1.709 2.771
SE difb 1.610 1.398 1.525 0.932
MC means 0.689 0.872 2.188 0.974
Practice A -0.74 1 -0.233 a.711 1.338 Xi.603
meansc B -0.556 1.733 2.222 1.583 1.616
C 0.833 1.267 2.111 1.287 1.546
D 3.274 3.750 2.044 1.667 3.228
SE difb 1.563 1.384 1.461 0.739
MC means 0.968 1.603 1.366 0.875

n*b~c
See footnotes to Table 3.
 Adoption of innovations by livestock producers 91

considered to represent a phenomenal rate of uptake and indicative of a

huge latent demand for the technology.

Heat detection routine in the dairy zone

The ex-ante analysis of herd fertility management indicated that dairy

farmers do not perceive the heat detection routine as an important specific
component of overall reproductive success. Consequently the idea of
addressing this issue as a technology composed of a number of critical
items was a totally new concept to farmers, a point unlikely to enhance
rapid adoption. In addition the attributes of the innovation such as negli-
gible observability, low compatibility and not easily explained relative
advantage all, from the outset, diminished the probability of acceptance
by producers.
The analysis of variance of changes in knowledge indices indicated
highly significant effects due to the covariate (P < 0.001) and ET (P <
0.001) and some suggestion that MC and ET x MC interaction also had
important influences (P < O-10, Table 11).
Table 12 shows how the main effect of ET on increased knowledge was
due to the superiority of treatments B, C and D over the control treatment
A at P < O-05. The observation that treatment D also produced a sig-
nificantly greater increase in knowledge index than treatment C (P < O-05)
is not easily explained but can be traced to the atypical behaviour of the
medium MC treatment producers on treatment C (Fig. 5a). Notwith-
standing, a general trend for a greater increase in knowledge with
increasing EAA may be appreciated. Higher MC producers tended to
have greater ability to acquire knowledge (Table 12) but this deduction
can be nothing more than a rough generalisation based on the incon-
clusive data. With regard to the evaluation of the technology, the effect of
ET was again seen to be statistically significant by analysis of variance
(P < 0.01, Table 11) with l-tests indicating that treatments B, C and D
gave greater increases than treatment A (P < 0.05, Table 12). The effect of
MC on change in evaluation is illustrated by reference to MC means in
Table 12 which suggests a greater ability of high MC farmers to increase
evaluation scores, however, t-tests revealed no statistical significance due
to the high standard errors of the data.
In terms of specific comparisons it was found that low MC farmers on
both treatments A and B changed evaluation significantly less than treat-
ment C and D producers (P < O*OS),within the medium MC group only
treatment D was found to be significantly superior to treatment A (P <
O.OS), whilst high MC producers exposed to treatments B, C and D all
demonstrated significantly greater increases in evaluation than the control
92 J. Wadsworth

treatment A P < O-05). These results illustrate the way in which increasing
MC is able to compensate for limited extension input and vice versa. Fig-
ure 5(b) illustrates the different responses for each MC level and shows
how high MC producers are able to achieve a peak increase in evaluation
by exposure to written information only (treatment B), whereas medium
MC farmers require at least the addition of personal contact (treatment C)
and low MC individuals may benefit from participation with the most
intensive EAA which included skills training (treatment D).
The results pertaining to improvements in the practice of the heat
detection routine closely followed the same pattern as already described in
the case of evaluation but with the emergence of more clearly defined
trends. The significant effect of ET (P < 0.01) as demonstrated by analysis
of variance (Table 11) can be shown by t-tests to be composed of the
superiority of treatment D over all other treatments (P < 0.05) and also
the significantly greater change in practice evoked by treatments C and B
over that of treatment A (P < O-05, Table 11). This result clearly demon-
(a) Knowledge

A B C D
Extension treatment

Fig. 5. Change in index values of heat detection technology by low (a), medium (
high (m) MC dairy farmers following exposure to different extension treatments.
 Adoption of innovations by livestock producers 93

TABLE 13
Reason Given for Non-adoption of Heat Detection Technology by Dairy Producers

3 x dailyd Wall charte

Number % Number %

Farmers exposed treatments B, C and D 22 (100) 22 (100)

Adoptersb 3 (14) 20 (91)
Non-adopters 19 (86) 2 (9)
Reasons for non-adoption
Not necessary, no problem 7 (37) (50)
Not necessary, use bull 2 (10) 1 -
Too time consuming I (37) (50)
Poor understanding of technique 2 (10) 1 ~~
Not interested I (5) - ~

a.h,c See footnotes to Table 4.

dOne specific recommended part of the technology was to observe cows for 30 min on
three specific occasions during the day.
A wall chart was provided which farmers could use to record observed heats, insemi-
nations and pregnancy diagnosis and which could be used to calculate and record expected
dates of probable next oestrus.

strates the significant upward trend of improvements in practice in

response to the increasing intensity of extension inputs.
Examination of the responses to different combinations of ET and MC
(Table 11, Fig. 5c) show that within the low MC category treatment D
produced significantly greater increases in practice than treatments A or
B. In the case of medium MC, treatment D was only greater than treat-
ment A, whilst treatments B, C and D all gave superior results to treat-
ment A in terms of high MC. Hence it may be concluded that the most
efficient use of resources would be achieved by allocating all high MC
farmers to treatment B, medium MC to at least treatment C and low MC
to treatment D, thus stratifying the sample on the basis of each indivi-
duals ability to adopt.
The ex-ante analysis giving rise to the casual model of technology flow
(Wadsworth, 1993) concluded that the only factor affecting the practice of
the heat detection routine was that of evaluation and that farmer MC was
totally unrelated. The ex-post analysis discussed above confirms the
importance of evaluation (Fig. 5) in affecting changes in practice but
contrasts markedly on the issue of managerial capacity. It is possible that
due to the extremely innovative nature of the technology insufficient
awareness existed in the ex-ante condition to permit an expression of the
differences between individuals attributable to level of MC.
94 J. Wadsworth

Changes in practice were mainly in terms of improvements made to

existing management procedures since only 14% of the sample exposed to
treatments B, C and D adopted the specific component of a thrice daily
heat observation routine as was recommended in the extension message.
Table 13 lists the reasons given for non-adoption of this practice which
underlines the important role of farmer attitude especially when dealing
with a technology whose attributes do not enhance the adoption process.
On the other hand, the use of the heat prediction wall charts (which was a
complete novelty having been uniquely designed and produced by the
author for the experiment) was adopted by 9 1% of the sample (Table 13)
indicating the willingness of farmers to take up innovations which they
perceive to be beneficial.

IMPLICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION

At the outset of this work it was hypothesised (Wadsworth, 1990a) that

the efficacy of agricultural extension operations might be improved by the
utilisation of a targeting strategy based on some measure of clients ability
to adopt innovations. In this way extension resources would be used more
efficiently and the traditional bias for extension to favour a small sector of
the population known as progressive farmers by implicit market skim-
ming would be reduced. This hypothesis is strongly supported by the cases
of dry season feeding and mineral supplementation in the dual-purpose
zone and calf rearing and heat detection amongst dairy farmers. In these
cases the innovations were adopted equally well by high MC farmers
regardless of the level of extension input to which they were exposed thus
indicating the adequacy of minimal cost extension activities with this type
of producer. Whilst with increasing extension intensity it was found that
lower MC producers were also able to overcome their adoption thresh-
old thereby lending credence to the contention that in conventional
extension approaches the least able to adopt individuals receive insuffi-
cient extension exposure, thus effectively wasting the effort expended on
them. Cases such as these have been termed managerial capacity depen-
dent (MCD) extension scenarios where farmer MC could be used to stra-
tify the population into reasonably homogeneous groups for allocation to
different extension regimes.
On the other hand the cases of identification and cow records in all
three zones, dry season feeding and mineral supplementation in the beef
zone were unresponsive to differences in MC in terms of changes in farmer
practice of the technology. Basically, although differences in adoption
behaviour existed between producers this could not be systematically
 Adoption of innovations by livestock producers 95

accounted for by differences in MC, hence this characteristic would be

unsuitable for use as a variable on which to stratify the population. These
conditions are denominated as managerial capacity independent (MCI)
extension scenarios.
A comparison of the common characteristics possessed by MCD and
MCI situations leads to the following set of generalisations.

Economic climate

MCD cases occurred under conditions of economic buoyancy in stark

contrast to the stagnation experienced throughout the experiment in the
beef zone where all the cases were found to be independent of MC (MCI).
All beef producers were under great financial pressure and incapable of
diverting resources from the principal issue of economic survival. Hence
for the MCD scenario to exist the general economic climate must permit
sufficient flexibility to enable producers to take the inevitable risk involved
with any innovation.

Attributes of innovations

The technologies selected for propagation must be carefully tested and

considered in terms of their perceived attributes (especially relative
advantage) from the farmers point of view. Information collected during
the first survey year enabled the general technologies to be selected and the
specific recommendations to be developed taking into account their
relative advantage, complexity and compatibility; this exercise ensured
that the arguments in favour of adoption were convincing. The sensitivity
of potential adopters to be convinced of the benefits of a given innovation
appears to be dependent upon MC as shown by the relationships between
increases in evaluation and practice during the experiment. Hence it is
possible to generalise that provided producers are able to perceive a
relative advantage of the innovation and neither its complexity nor com-
patibility characteristics preclude utilisation then the MCD pattern of
adoption may be expected to occur.

Structural constraints

Possibly the most critical point which either permits or prohibits the
uptake of a new technology is that no structural constraint should make
adoption impossible. This generalisation seems too obvious to be worthy
of mention, however cases occur, all too frequently, where extension
resources are wasted in futile efforts to promote change under impossible
96 J. Wa&worth

structural conditions. The case of cow record cards in all three zones is a
case in point and has already been discussed within the individual sections.
On making previously unobtainable inputs available the whole adoption
process is transformed from enforced non-adoption (at least for the large
majority) to one of liberty to choose to adopt the innovation. With refer-
ence to cow cards this occurred even though the technology itself is
innately complex and of low initial benefit. Perhaps the initial euphoric
adoption, as a response to the sudden release of the structural constraint,
would later give way to a situation of the continuing use being dependent
on MC, whereupon extension targeting to prevent low MC producers
from abandoning the technology would be called for.

Appropriate innovations

Although partially covered in the above generalisations and related to

structural constraints, the example of dry season feeding by beef produ-
cers does serve to illustrate a very important point which resulted in the
MCI adoption pattern. This was due to the inappropriate nature of the
innovation which, at the time of the experiment, was basically only of
value to a small proportion of producers interested in intensification. This
case demonstrates the classic mistake of the top-down research and
extension model whereby an innovation which may be proven to be bio-
logically and economically advantageous within the confines of the
experimental station, is totally inappropriate to producers who face a
completely different set of uncertainties. Beef producers reacted to the
economic forces outside their control in the time honoured fashion of
retreat into an even more extensive production system associated with low
risk. In the dual purpose zone only 50 km distant the response to the dry
season feeding technology could not have been more dissimilar where, due
to the emphasis on liquid milk sales, the technology was highly appro-
priate to almost all producers. Hence the adoption of dry season feeding
in the beef zone was unable to occur with the exception of a tiny specific
segment of the population. The avoidance of such potentially disastrous
extension errors could be aided by greater attention to the farmers real
needs rather than the researchers perception of them, along with close
monitoring of pilot extension programmes before full scale campaigns are
launched. As will be appreciated the above four generalisations are inter-
dependent and should be considered in conjunction in order to evaluate
whether a given extension scenario is likely to be of the MCD or MCI type.
The results of this research are of profound importance in the search for
more efficient ways of using scarce extension resources, not only from the
point of view of the numbers of adopters, but also the type of producer
 Adoption qf innovations by livestock producers 91

being encouraged to incorporate new technology into the farm system. In

order to identify conditions in which a targeted extension approach would
be most appropriate some method of prediction is required.

CONCLUSIONS

The causal models constructed by Wadsworth (1993) attempted to explain

the relationships between MC, knowledge, evaluation and practice of the
innovations under standard conditions of extension before the experiment
took place. This analysis was used to explain the historical perspective and
attempted to predict how each group of farmers would react to the
experimental extension treatments.
Comparison of ex-ante (Wadsworth, 1993) and experimental results
show that five of the nine cases were correctly predicted by the causal
models, these were dry season feeding and cow record cards in the beef
zone; the adoption of dry season feeding and record cards by dual-pur-
pose producers and calf rearing in the dairy zone. Careful consideration of
each of these five cases leads to the general conclusion that the main rea-
son for the successful prediction of the experimental result from the causal
modelling exercise was achieved when a high latent demand for the tech-
nology existed as in the case of cow record cards or when the technology
was totally inappropriate such as dry season feeding in the beef zone.
These three cases were correctly predicted to be MCI (Table 1) by the
causal models and thereby unlikely to offer any potential for extension
targeting on the basis of MC.
On the other hand dry season feeding by dual-purpose farmers and calf
rearing amongst dairy farmers were both correctly predicted to be repre-
sentative of MCD extension scenarios (Table 1) and thus present scope for
a stratified extension approach. These last two cases are both char-
acterised by conditions where the technological principles of the proposed
innovations are generally known throughout the population but where
access to knowledge is significantly affected by farmer MC.
It should be borne in mind that the function of a system is modified by
the overall environment in which it operates, in the present case the same
system of technology flow was studied under two quite different environ-
mental conditions. First in the ex-ante investigation where a uniform,
almost non-existent extension activity environment existed, and then after
the experiment which had purposefully changed the environment to one of
high extension activity. Consequently the predicted models derived from
causal path analysis were tested under a different set of conditions, in the
above mentioned set of five cases the predictions were accurate for the
98 J. Waa!sworth

reasons stated. However the four cases where causal modelling was unable
to predict the experimental result, rather than being considered to repre-
sent a failure of the technique, may be treated as an opportunity to explain
the mechanisms involved in the adoption process in more detail and
thereby improve the technology flow model.

Economic considerations

Mineral supplementation in the beef zone was predicted to be MCD but

the experimental results showed it to be MCI. This may again be
explained by the critical cash flow situation experienced by most of the
producers in the beef zone which made mineral adoption impossible under
the circumstances and points to the importance of attempting to assess
innovations from the perspective of the producer before assuming that a
given technology will be acceptable.

Minimum general awareness

Evidence exists to suggest that where the knowledge, evaluation and

practice of a technology are generally low throughout a population then it
is reasonable to accept that these components of adoption may be insuffi-
cient for even the high MC producers to exploit their greater ability to
adopt innovations. In other words a minimum threshold of awareness and
functional understanding may be an essential pre-condition which permits
differences in MC to be expressed. This was found to be the case for
mineral supplementation in the dual-purpose zone and the adoption of
heat detection by dairy farmers which was an extremely innovative tech-
nology as presented. In both these cases the ex-ante causal models indi-
cated the absence of any connection between MC and practice and
therefore predicted MCI characteristics, however experimental results
disproved this prediction and clearly showed that the adoption process
followed the familiar MCD pattern. It may therefore be generalised that
where the effect of extension is likely to radically change the overall
environment (context of adoption) then the ex-ante causal model
approach is insufficient to allow the confident prediction of the adoption
process on this analysis alone. Further investigation of this concept of
mineral threshold conditions would be required to test the above reasoning.

Structural constraints

The lifting of structural constraints may, in some circumstances, change

the prevailing conditions to such an extent that the ex-ante hypotheses
 Adoption of innovationsby livestockproducers 99

become invalid. This was observed to occur with respect to the adoption
of cow record cards by dairy producers. The causal model predicted that
practice was dependent upon MC under ex-ante conditions, this was a
reasonable explanation of the prevailing use of the technology which by
no means was totally inaccessible to producers as in the other two zones.
Hence higher MC producers had been able to adopt more rapidly than
lower MC individuals. This situation changed abruptly with the applica-
tion of the extension experiment when, due to the lifting of the structural
constraint concerned with input availability, all producers were given
access to the technology and almost all adopted regardless of MC. In this
way the effect of structural change may be thought to have swamped the
predicted effect of MC.
In general terms it must be concluded that this type of modelling
approach offers significant potential benefits for increasing the efficiency
of agricultural extension activities by predicting the likely pattern of
adoption with respect to the farmer characteristic MC. Furthermore the
validity of the model will be increased if the above considerations regard-
ing economic conditions, awareness thresholds and structural constraints
are included, at least subjectively, in the interpretation of the causal
models.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work was carried out whilst the author was employed by the Over-
seas Development Administration (UK) on assignment at the Central
American School of Animal Husbandry.

REFERENCES

Brown, L. A. (1981). Innovation Dtj$usion: A New Perspective, Methuen, New York.

Brown, L. A. Malecki, E. J. & Spector, A. N. (1976). Adopter categories in a
spatial context: alternative explanations for an empirical regularity. Annals of
the Association of American Geographers, 61, 551-9.
Draper, N. & Smith, H. (1966) Applied Regression Analysis. John Wiley, New
York.
Lane, P., Galway, N. & Alvey, N. (1987). Genstat 5: An Introduction. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Wadsworth, J. (1989). Characteristics and performance of cattle production
systems in the Pacific region of Costa Rica. Report produced on completion
of a Technical Cooperation Assignment at the Central American School of
Animal Husbandry (ECAG), Atenas, Costa Rica. Overseas Development
Administration, London, 459 pp., 57 Refs.
100 J. Wadsworth

Wadsworth, J. (1990a). Developing efficient extension strategies: results of an

experiment involving Costa Rican livestock producers. Agricultural Systems,
341,259-75.
Wadsworth, J. (1990b). A systems approach to agricultural extension in economic
development as exemplified by an experiment with livestock farmers in Costa
Rica. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Reading.
Wadsworth, J. (1993). Use of causal path analysis to predict optimum extension
strategies: a case study of Costa Rican livestock producers. Agricultural
Systems, 41, 503-23.