Agricultural knowledge sharing through Whatsapp farming groups: Dynamics, quality, and misinformation risks

Introduction

How do you correct a pesticide recommendation that has already been forwarded to 200 farmers before anyone noticed it was wrong? This challenge captures the fundamental tension in WhatsApp-based agricultural knowledge sharing: the same features that make the platform powerful, ease of forwarding, multimedia support, and group communication, also make it an efficient vector for misinformation [1] . WhatsApp has become dominant in rural areas of transitional economies, with farming groups proliferating as informal extension channels outside formal advisory oversight [2] . In Bosnia and Herzegovina, WhatsApp farming groups emerged after 2016 as alternatives to fragmented public extension services [3] . The agricultural sector comprises approximately 340,000 small family farms, many in mountainous terrain with limited advisory access [4] . Groups enabled farmers to share photos for disease identification, exchange market prices, and discuss recommendations, but this informal ecosystem operates without quality controls, creating risks that incorrect information spreads as readily as accurate guidance [5] . This research examined knowledge sharing patterns, content quality, and misinformation prevalence, identifying factors that distinguish high-quality groups from those with significant misinformation problems.

Research Context

Bosnia and Herzegovina agricultural extension has operated under severe resource constraints since post-war reconstruction. The divided administrative structure produces fragmented coverage with agent-to-farmer ratios exceeding 1:2,500 in most cantons [6] . This context created conditions where WhatsApp groups emerged as a grassroots response to formal service inadequacy, making information quality in these groups a matter of direct practical importance.

Materials and Methods

Materials

The research covered WhatsApp farming groups operating across seven cantons in Bosnia and Herzegovina between March and August 2022. The institutional base was the Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Sarajevo. Materials included archived message data from 84 WhatsApp farming groups (total 12,847 messages), a structured survey instrument administered to 316 group members (44 items, Cronbach alpha = 0.84), and semistructured interview guides for 32 group administrators. Group selection used snowball sampling starting from extension office contact lists and farmer association networks. Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Sarajevo Ethics Board (Protocol UNSA/EB/2021-067, approved February 2022). All message data were anonymized before analysis.

Methods

Content analysis used a coding framework distinguishing six content types: technical advice, disease/pest queries, market information, input recommendations, policy updates, www.extensionjournal.com and social messages. Message quality was rated by two trained agronomists on a 7-point scale (ICC = 0.83). Misinformation was defined as technically incorrect advice that could cause crop damage, economic loss, or health risk. Analysis included Pearson correlations, logistic regression predicting misinformation occurrence, and ANOVA comparing groups with and without extension agent presence [7] . The absence of extension agents was the strongest predictor of misinformation (OR = 2.58), followed by pesticiderelated content (OR = 2.31) and lack of moderation (OR = 1.93). Messages including photos had lower misinformation odds (OR = 0.62), suggesting that visual evidence supported more accurate knowledge sharing.

Results

Comprehensive Interpretation

WhatsApp farming groups function as double-edged knowledge tools. They expand information access for isolated farmers but also amplify misinformation without quality controls. The critical threshold appears around 120 members: below this, social accountability helps maintain quality; above it, anonymity increases and controls weaken.

Discussion

The inverse relationship between group size and quality mirrors online community research showing that larger groups experience reduced social accountability [8] . In WhatsApp contexts, this manifests as members sharing unverified recommendations knowing contributions will be quickly buried in large groups [9] . The 120-member threshold provides a practical guideline for extension agencies. The protective effect of extension agent presence (61% reduction) suggests formal and informal knowledge sharing are potentially complementary [10] . Rather than controlling WhatsApp groups, agencies could embed agents as expert participants who correct misinformation and model evidence-based sharing [11] . This represents a shift from extension as information delivery to extension as information quality assurance.

Future Directions

Conclusion

This research demonstrated that WhatsApp farming groups serve as important but imperfect agricultural knowledge sharing platforms. Knowledge quality declined with group size, misinformation concentrated in pesticide recommendations and disease identification, and extension agent presence was the strongest protective factor. Rather than viewing informal digital knowledge sharing as a threat to formal extension, agencies should engage strategically with these platforms by embedding expert participants, supporting active moderation, and promoting verification norms. Managing group sizes below 120 members and ensuring expert presence represent the most practical interventions for maintaining knowledge quality.

References

1. Berman R, Katona Z. The role of search engine optimization in search marketing. Marketing Science. 2013;32(4):644-651.
2. Aker JC, Ghosh I, Burrell J. The promise and pitfalls of ICT for agriculture initiatives. Agricultural Economics. 2016;47(S1):35-48.
3. Katica A, Muminovic H. Agricultural advisory services www.extensionjournal.com in Bosnia and Herzegovina: current status and reform needs. Works of the Faculty of Agriculture University of Sarajevo. 2018;63(1):34-47.
4. Agency for Statistics of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Agricultural census 2020: preliminary results. Government Publication. 2021;1:1-42.
5. Wardle C, Derakhshan H. Information disorder: toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe Report. 2017;1:1-107.
6. Bajramovic S, Ognjenovic D, Nikolic A. Review of agriculture and agricultural policy in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Agricultural Policy and European Integration in Southeastern Europe. 2016;1:55-72.
7. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. Third edition. John Wiley and Sons. 2013;1:1-528.
8. Kraut RE, Resnick P. Building successful online communities: evidence-based social design. MIT Press. 2012;1:1-328.
9. Leeuwis C, Aarts N. Rethinking communication in innovation processes: creating space for change in complex systems. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 2011;17(1):21-36.
10. Sulaiman VR, Davis K. The new extensionist: roles and capacities to strengthen extension and advisory services. GFRAS Position Paper. 2012;4:1-20.
11. Thakur D, Chander M, Katoch S. Social media in agricultural extension: benefits and challenges under Indian context. International Journal of Science and Research. 2017;6(11):39-41.
12. Krone M, Dannenberg P, Nduru G. The use of modern information and communication technologies in smallholder agriculture: examples from Kenya and Tanzania. Information Development. 2016;32(5):15031512.
13. Haug R. Forced migration, processes of return and livelihood construction among pastoralists in northern Sudan. Disasters. 2002;26(1):70-84.
14. Feder G, Umali DL. The adoption of agricultural innovations: a review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 1993;43(3):215-239.
15. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. Fifth edition. Free Press. 2003;1:1-551.
16. Cole SA, Fernando AN. Mobile phone-based agricultural extension in India. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. 2021;13(1):68-99.
17. Fafchamps M, Minten B. Impact of SMS-based agricultural information on Indian farmers. World Bank Economic Review. 2012;26(3):383-414.
18. Nakasone E, Torero M, Minten B. The power of information: the ICT revolution in agricultural development. Annual Review of Resource Economics. 2014;6:533-550.
19. Davis K, Nkonya E, Kato E, Mekonnen DA. Impact of farmer field schools on agricultural productivity. World Development. 2012;40(2):402-413.
20. Anderson JR, Feder G. Agricultural extension: good intentions and hard realities. World Bank Research Observer. 2004;19(1):41-60.
21. Swanson BE. Global review of good agricultural extension and advisory service practices. FAO Extension Paper. 2008;1:1-82.