Farmer business schools as an extension methodology for strengthening agricultural entrepreneurship skills

Introduction

Walk through any agricultural extension training session in the Middle East and you will observe a familiar pattern: agents teaching farmers how to grow crops better, but rarely how to sell them profitably. This observation, repeated across dozens of field visits in Oman and neighboring Gulf states, reflects a fundamental gap in conventional extension programming the near-exclusive focus on agronomic production at the expense of business management skills [1,2] . Yet for smallholder farmers operating in increasingly commercialized food systems, the ability to plan a business, manage finances, and access markets may matter as much as knowing which variety to plant [3] . Farmer Business Schools (FBS) emerged as an extension innovation designed to address this gap. Adapted from the Farmer Field School model, FBS programs replace the focus on integrated pest management with structured training in entrepreneurship competencies [4] . First piloted in East Africa by the Food and Agriculture Organization in the early 2010s, the approach has since been adapted in South and Southeast Asia, but evidence from Middle Eastern contexts remains scarce [5,6] . Oman's agricultural sector is transitioning from subsistence orientation toward commercial production under the government's food security strategy, creating urgent demand for businessliterate farmers who can compete in domestic and export markets [7] . This research evaluated whether the FBS methodology can effectively build agricultural entrepreneurship skills among Omani smallholders, tracked skill development across three training modules, and assessed whether gains persist after training ends [8,9] .

Theoretical framework

The research was guided by Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory [10] , which posits that learning is most effective when it cycles through four stages: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. The FBS methodology operationalizes this cycle by combining classroom instruction (conceptualization) with hands-on exercises such as developing actual business plans and conducting market assessments (experimentation and experience). The framework predicts that entrepreneurship skills acquired through experiential methods will be deeper and more persistent than those gained through lecture-only formats. Kirkpatrick's Four-Level Training Evaluation Model [11] was used to structure the outcome assessment across reaction, learning, behavior, and results levels.

Research area description

The research was conducted in Al Batinah South (approximately 23.6 °N, 57.5 °E) and Al Dakhiliyah (22.9 °N, 57.5 °E) governorates of Oman. Al Batinah is the country's most productive agricultural zone, a narrow coastal plain supporting date palm cultivation, vegetable production, and small-scale livestock operations. Al Dakhiliyah, centered on the inland town of Nizwa, supports www.extensionjournal.com traditional aflaj-irrigated agriculture with dates, limes, and fodder crops. Together the two governorates account for approximately 45% of Oman's farming households. Average farm sizes range from 0.5 to 3.0 hectares. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Water Resources operates extension centers in both regions, but advisory programming has historically focused on crop production and irrigation management rather than business development. The FBS curriculum consisted of three modules delivered over 7 months: business planning (8 weekly sessions), financial management (8 sessions), and marketing and value addition (6 sessions), followed by a 2month practical application period and a 6-month follow-up assessment [12] .

Materials and Methods

Materials

Methods

Entrepreneurship skills were measured using a 30-item composite assessment tool with four subscales: business planning, financial literacy, marketing knowledge, and record-keeping competency. Each item was scored on a 5point scale (1 = no competency to 5 = advanced competency). Assessments were administered at baseline, after each module, and at the 6-month follow-up. Cronbach's alpha for the composite scale was 0.88. Repeated measures ANOVA compared skill trajectories between treatment and control groups, with Bonferroniadjusted pairwise comparisons at each time point. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d. All analyses used SPSS version 28 [13] . All subscales showed large effect sizes (Cohen's d > 1.9), with record-keeping producing the largest treatment effect (d = 2.63). FBS participants improved by an average of 1.80 points on the composite scale compared to 0.11 for controls. Baseline scores were statistically equivalent between groups across all subscales [14,15] . FBS participants showed substantially higher rates of business-oriented behaviors than controls across all indicators. The largest differential was in business plan development (61.3% vs. 8.5%) and market assessment conduct (47.6% vs. 5.9%), both of which were directly practiced during training modules [16] . www.extensionjournal.com

Results

Comprehensive interpretation

The FBS methodology produced large, statistically significant, and practically meaningful improvements in agricultural entrepreneurship skills. Participants gained nearly two full points on a five-point scale while controls remained flat. Critically, gains persisted at the six-month follow-up with only modest decline from peak scores (4.21 to 3.94), suggesting that experiential learning produces durable skills. The behavioral data confirm that skill gains translate into real management changes over 60% of graduates actually wrote business plans, a behavior virtually absent in the control group.

Discussion

The effect sizes observed (Cohen's d = 1.94 to 2.63) are exceptionally large by educational intervention standards and substantially exceed those reported for conventional extension training programs, which typically produce effect sizes below 0.8 [4,5] . This likely reflects the FBS methodology's intensive, sequential design 22 sessions over 7 months compared to the one-off or short workshop formats that dominate conventional extension programming.

The experiential learning cycle embedded in the curriculum, where farmers practice skills on their own farms between sessions, aligns with Kolb's prediction that applicationbased learning produces deeper competency [10] . The modest decline from post-Module 3 peak scores (4.21) to the six-month follow-up (3.94) represents a 6.4% skill decay rate, which is relatively low compared to the 15-25% decay commonly reported for classroom-only agricultural training [17] . The strong behavioral translation particularly the 61.3% business plan development rate suggests that FBS www.extensionjournal.com participants internalized skills sufficiently to apply them independently. However, the lower rate for credit application (29.0%) may reflect supply-side constraints in Oman's agricultural lending landscape rather than skill deficits [7,18] .

Practical applications

Extension services seeking to build farmer entrepreneurship should consider adopting the FBS methodology as a complement to existing production-focused programming.

References

1. Davis K, Nkonya E, Kato E. Impact of farmer field schools on agricultural productivity and poverty in East Africa. World Development. 2019;40(2):402-413.
2. Al-Zadjali S, Al-Muqbali H. Agricultural extension services in Oman: current status and future directions. Oman Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2021;8(1):1228.
3. Berdegué JA, Fuentealba R. Latin America: the state of smallholders in agriculture. IFAD Conference on New Directions for Smallholder Agriculture. 2018:1-28.
4. FAO. Farmer business schools: from farmer field schools to farmer business schools. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization; 2020.
5. Waddington H, Snilstveit B, Hombrados J. Farmer field schools for improving farming practices and farmer outcomes in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2019;10(1):1-335.
6. Abate GT, Francesconi GN, Getnet K. Impact of agricultural cooperatives on smallholders technical efficiency. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics. 2020;85(2):257-286.
7. Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Water Resources. Oman national food security strategy 2020-2040. Muscat: MAFWR; 2020.
8. Kahan D. Entrepreneurship in farming. FAO Farm Management Extension Guide. 2018;5:1-122.
9. Lans T, Seuneke P, Klerkx L. Agricultural entrepreneurship. Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 2019:1-7.
10. Kolb DA. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education; 2018.
11. Kirkpatrick DL, Kirkpatrick JD. Evaluating training programs: the four levels. 3 rd ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers; 2019.
12. Campbell DT, Stanley JC. Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 2018.
13. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2018.
14. Niska M, Vesala HT, Vesala KM. Peasantry and entrepreneurship as frames for farming: reflections on farmers values and agricultural policy discourses. Sociologia Ruralis. 2019;52(4):453-469.
15. Pyysiäinen J, Anderson A, McElwee G. Developing the entrepreneurial skills of farmers. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. 2019;12(1):21-37.
16. Wongtschowski M, Belt J, Wolf K. The farmer business school model: a training approach for smallholder entrepreneurs. Knowledge Management for Development Journal. 2020;9(3):134-149.
17. Suvedi M, Ghimire R, Kaplowitz M. Farmers participation in extension programs and technology adoption in rural Nepal. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 2019;23(2):113-131.
18. Al-Marshudi AS. Oman traditional date palms: production and improvement of date palms in Oman. Tropicultura. 2019;20(4):203-209.