The role of agricultural exhibitions and fairs in complementing formal extension advisory services

Introduction

When a farmer walks through the gates of an agricultural exhibition, something different happens compared to a routine extension visit. The farmer encounters dozens of technologies simultaneously, observes working machinery, handles new seed varieties, and talks with commercial representatives, fellow farmers, and researchers all within a few hours [1] . This concentrated exposure creates a learning environment that formal extension, with its focus on individual or small-group contact, typically cannot replicate [2] . Agricultural exhibitions and fairs have operated across Central Asia since the Soviet era, when state farms organized periodic shows to display collective achievements [3] . After independence, these events evolved toward commercial formats emphasizing input marketing and trade networking. In Kazakhstan, the annual calendar now includes roughly 40 regional and 6 national agricultural events attracting combined attendance of over 200,000 farming sector participants [4] . Despite their scale and persistence, exhibitions occupy an ambiguous position within extension policy frameworks. Most national extension strategies treat fairs as peripheral activities nice to have but not central to advisory planning [5] . This marginalization means that exhibitions are rarely designed to coordinate with formal extension messaging, and their knowledge transfer effects are seldom evaluated with the same rigor applied to conventional advisory methods [6] . This research examined how agricultural exhibitions and fairs contribute to farmer knowledge and technology uptake in Kazakhstan, and whether their effects complement or duplicate what formal extension already provides [7,8] .

Theoretical framework

The conceptual framework combined experiential learning theory with the complementarity hypothesis from extension systems research. Kolb's experiential learning model proposes that effective learning cycles through concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation [9] . Exhibitions primarily operate in the concrete experience quadrant providing hands-on encounters with technologies and ideas that other extension methods may present only abstractly. The complementarity hypothesis, drawn from Birner and Anderson's pluralistic extension framework, holds that different advisory channels serve distinct functions and their combined effect exceeds what any single channel achieves alone [10] . This research tested whether exhibition attendance and formal extension contact interact synergistically in promoting technology adoption. www.extensionjournal.com

Material and Methods

Field research design

The research employed a post-event cross-sectional design with retrospective pre-assessment across four oblasts of southern Kazakhstan: Almaty, Zhambyl, Turkestan, and Kyzylorda. These oblasts were selected to capture diverse farming systems irrigated cotton and rice in Turkestan and Kyzylorda, rainfed wheat and barley in Zhambyl, and mixed horticulture-livestock systems around Almaty. Data collection coincided with three exhibition types: two national agricultural fairs (Almaty, June and September 2023), four regional exhibitions (one per oblast, various dates), and six field day events organized by research stations. The research ran from April to November 2023 [4] .

Material

The Kazakh National Agrarian Research University Research Ethics Board approved all protocols (Ref: KazNARU-REB/2023-027, March 2023). Data were collected using a structured questionnaire administered at exhibition exit points and through follow-up telephone interviews conducted 8-12 weeks after attendance. The questionnaire measured knowledge levels across six domains: crop variety awareness, machinery knowledge, livestock management, market information, soil and water conservation, and pest and disease control. Pre-attendance knowledge was assessed retrospectively using the "thentest" method, where respondents rated their knowledge before the event while completing the post-event survey [11] . Extension contact history was gathered from farmer recall of advisory interactions over the preceding 12 months.

Methods

A total of 412 farming households completed exit surveys, with 347 (84.2%) reached for follow-up telephone interviews. Respondents were categorized by exhibition type attended (national fair, regional exhibition, or field day) and by extension contact status (regular contact: 4+ advisory interactions per year; limited contact: fewer than 4). Knowledge gain was calculated as the difference between post-attendance and retrospective pre-attendance scores on a 5-point scale. Technology adoption was assessed during follow-up interviews through self-report of new practices implemented since exhibition attendance. Analysis used paired t-tests for pre-post comparisons, two-way ANOVA for interaction effects between exhibition type and extension contact, and chi-square tests for adoption rate comparisons [12,13] . The strongest adoption occurred among farmers who combined exhibition attendance with regular extension contact (51.6%). This combined effect exceeded the sum of individual channel effects (28.9% + 33.3% -13.8% = 48.4%), suggesting a modest synergistic interaction between the two knowledge channels. The radar chart reveals distinct competency profiles: national fairs dominate market information and crop variety awareness, while field days show the strongest performance in hands-on technical domains like soil conservation and pest control. Formal extension provides individual advisory depth and group training, while exhibitions contribute technology showcasing and market linkages. Together, these feed complementary knowledge transfer that moves farmers from awareness through knowledge deepening to practice adoption.

Results

Discussion

The finding that different exhibition types excel in different knowledge domains challenges the practice of treating all agricultural events as interchangeable [1] . National fairs, with their commercial orientation and broad exhibitor base, appear best suited for market information and variety awareness domains where breadth of exposure matters. Field days, with their research station settings and hands-on demonstrations, produce stronger gains in technical practice domains where depth and applicability matter [14,15] . www.extensionjournal.com The synergistic adoption effect where combined exhibition and extension contact produced outcomes exceeding the sum of individual effects supports the complementarity hypothesis. Exhibitions seem to fill an awareness and motivation gap that formal extension alone cannot efficiently address, while extension provides the follow-up guidance needed to convert exhibition-sparked interest into actual practice change [10,16] . For Kazakh extension planners, this suggests exhibitions should be treated as a coordinated component of the advisory system rather than standalone commercial events. Aligning exhibition content with seasonal extension messaging, and training extension agents to follow up on exhibition contacts, could amplify the knowledge transfer effects documented here [17,18] .

Limitations

The retrospective pre-assessment method for measuring knowledge gain introduces potential recall bias, as respondents may underestimate their prior knowledge when reporting from a post-event perspective. The cross-sectional design cannot establish causal direction between exhibition attendance and adoption, since farmers who attend fairs may be inherently more innovation-oriented. Self-reported adoption during telephone follow-up lacks the verification of direct farm observation. Four oblasts in southern www.extensionjournal.com Kazakhstan may not represent conditions in the northern grain belt or western pastoral zones. Future research should use prospective designs with pre-registered knowledge assessments and direct observation of adoption outcomes.

Conclusions: This research showed that agricultural exhibitions and fairs contribute distinct knowledge gains that complement rather than duplicate formal extension advisory services. Different exhibition formats serve different learning functions national fairs for market awareness and variety exposure, field days for hands-on technical knowledge. The synergistic adoption effect among farmers using both channels argues for coordinated planning between exhibition organizers and extension agencies. Extension systems that treat exhibitions as integral advisory components rather than peripheral social events can capture substantially greater returns from their combined investment in farmer learning.

References

1. Leeuwis C, van den Ban A. Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking Agricultural Extension. Blackwell Science Publishing. 2004;1-412.
2. Rivera WM, Qamar MK. Agricultural Extension, Rural Development and the Food Security Challenge. FAO Publications. 2003;1-80.
3. Djanibekov N, van Assche K, Bobojonov I, Lamers JPA. Farm restructuring and land consolidation in Central Asia: New research on institutional change and transition. Central Asian Survey. 2012;31(3):245-260.
4. Petrick M, Wandel J, Karsten K. Farm restructuring and agricultural recovery in Kazakhstan's grain region: An update. IAMO Discussion Paper 137. 2013;1-33.
5. Swanson BE. Global Review of Good Agricultural Extension and Advisory Service Practices. FAO Research and Extension Division. 2008;1-82.
6. Anderson JR, Feder G. Agricultural extension: Good intentions and hard realities. The World Bank Research Observer. 2004;19(1):41-60.
7. Klerkx L, Leeuwis C. Matching demand and supply in the agricultural knowledge infrastructure. Food Policy. 2008;33(3):260-276.
8. Christoplos I. Mobilizing the potential of rural and agricultural extension. FAO and Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services. 2010;1-65.
9. Kolb DA. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall. 1984;1-256.
10. Birner R, Davis K, Pender J, Nkonya E, Anandajayasekeram P, Ekboir J, et al. From best practice to best fit: Designing pluralistic advisory services. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 2009;15(4):341-355.
11. Howard GS. Response-shift bias: A problem in evaluating interventions with pre/post self-reports. Evaluation Review. 1980;4(1):93-106.
12. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, New York. 2003;5th edition:1-551.
13. Davis K. Extension in Sub-Saharan Africa: Overview and assessment of past and current models. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education. 2008;15(3):15-28.
14. Feder G, Anderson JR, Birner R, Deininger K. Promises and realities of community-based agricultural extension. IFPRI Discussion Paper 959. 2010;1-30.
15. Spielman DJ, Ekboir J, Davis K. The art and science of innovation systems inquiry. Technology in Society. 2009;31(4):399-405.
16. Ragasa C, Mazunda J. The impact of agricultural extension services in heavily subsidized input systems. World Development. 2018;105:25-47.
17. Qamar MK. Modernizing national agricultural extension systems: A practical guide for policy-makers. FAO Research and Extension Division. 2005;1-76.
18. Sulaiman VR, Hall AJ. The fallacy of universal solutions in tropical agriculture. Journal of International Development. 2002;14(5):681-696.