Assessment of training needs of smallholder farmers in shifting cultivation areas

Introduction

The problem is straightforward but stubborn: smallholder communities in Ethiopia's hill regions depend on shifting cultivation for food and income, yet fallow periods that once stretched 15-20 years have shrunk to 3-5 years, depleting soil fertility and depressing yields [1] . Government programmes have long encouraged a transition to settled farming, but adoption rates remain low because the recommended practices are often poorly matched to smallholder socio-economic conditions, terrain, and cultural preferences [2] . Training is the bridge between technology generation and field-level adoption, and its effectiveness depends on accurately identifying what farmers need to learn rather than what scientists want to teach [3] . Training need assessment (TNA) methodology, rooted in Borich's discrepancy model, measures the gap between a farmer's current competence and the competence required for improved performance [4] . When applied to smallholder populations, TNA must also account for literacy levels, language barriers, seasonal labour calendars, and trust in different information sources [5] . Earlier TNA research in southwestern Ethiopia focused on wet-rice growers and horticultural farmers, but few have specifically addressed shifting cultivators in the Ethiopian highlands [6] . This research therefore assessed training needs, preferred training methods, and information-source usage among smallholder farmers in Jimma Zone, Oromia, to generate actionable recommendations for extension programme design.

Material and Methods

Material

The research was conducted in Jimma Zone, Oromia (7°40′N, 36°50′E; altitude 1,500-2,200 m), during January-May 2024.

Three woredas-Mana, Gomma, and Gera-were selected purposively based on the prevalence of shifting cultivation among smallholder farming households. From each block, two villages were chosen at random, and 30 smallholder farmer households per village were selected by simple random sampling, giving a total sample of 180. A pre-tested structured interview schedule was the main data-collection tool, developed in Amharic and pilot-tested with 20 nonsample respondents in a neighbouring block [7] .

Methods

Training needs were assessed across six domains using a modified Borich model. Respondents rated their current competence and desired competence on each domain using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very low, 5 = very high). The mean weighted discrepancy score (MWDS) was computed as MWDS = Σ[(importance × discrepancy) / n]. Preferred training methods and information sources were captured through multiple-response questions. Socio-demographic data (age, education, landholding, farming experience) were also recorded. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Kruskal-Wallis test (for age-group comparisons), and Spearman's rank correlation in SPSS v. 26 [8] .

Results

Of the 180 respondents, 34.4% were young farmers (<30 years), 41.1% were middle-aged (30-50), and 24.5% were senior (>50). Literacy was low: 42.8% had no formal schooling, 31.1% had primary education, and only 8.9% had studied beyond class 10. Average landholding under shifting cultivation was 0.87 ha per household.

Discussion

The dominance of organic certification as a training need is a relatively recent phenomenon. A decade ago, TNA research among hill farmers rarely identified certification as a priority [6] . The shift appears driven by the entry of aggregator companies and NGOs offering price premiums for certified organic produce in Oromia, raising awareness among younger, more connected farmers [9] . This finding supports Singh and Burman's [10] observation that market signals, not extension advice alone, shape training demand in smallholder areas. On-farm demonstrations were the most preferred method (82.4%), followed by farmer-to-farmer exchange (76.1%).

Lecture-based methods ranked poorly (38.2%), consistent with low literacy and a strong oral knowledge tradition.

Analogous preferences were reported by Das and Borua [5] in Assam and by Lyngdoh and Patel [11] in Meghalaya. For extension agencies, this means shifting budgets from classroom training towards experiential, field-based methods-a transition that requires more field staff time but yields better adoption rates [12] . Traditional elders remained the primary source for cropselection decisions (68%), but mobile-based media had overtaken extension officers for market information (45% vs 31%). This digital shift, though partial, signals an opportunity for mobile-delivered training content in local dialects [13] .

Conclusion

References

1. Padoch C, Pinedo-Vasquez M. Saving slash-and-burn to save biodiversity. Biotropica. 2010;42(5):550-552.
2. Ramakrishnan PS. Shifting agriculture and sustainable development: an interdisciplinary approach. UNESCOMAB Series, Parthenon, Carnforth. 1992;1-424.
3. Swanson BE, Bentz RP, Sofranko AJ. Improving agricultural extension: a reference manual. FAO, Rome. 1997.
4. Borich GD. A needs assessment model for conducting follow-up studies. Journal of Teacher Education. 1980;31(3):39-42.
5. Das M, Borua S. Training needs of tribal farmers of Assam in organic farming. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 2017;17(1):46-50.
6. Singh AK, Singh KM, Shahi B. Role of extension in transfer of agricultural technology in hill areas. Economic Affairs. 2013;58(2):193-198.
7. Kumar A, Chauhan JP. Research methodology in social sciences. Agrobios, Jodhpur. 2015.
8. Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. 5th ed. Sage, London. 2018.
9. Panneerselvam P, Hermansen JE, Halberg N. Food security of small holding farmers: comparing organic and conventional systems in Ethiopia. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. 2012;36(1):48-68.
10. Singh P, Burman RR. Determinants of training needs among tribal farmers in Jharkhand. Journal of Community Mobilization and Sustainable Development. 2018;13(2):313-320.
11. Lyngdoh BF, Patel RK. Training preferences of tribal farmers in Meghalaya. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2014;50(3-4):72-76.
12. Davis K, Nkonya E, Kato E. Impact of farmer field schools on agricultural productivity and poverty. World Development. 2012;40(2):402-413.
13. Mittal S, Gandhi S, Tripathi G. Socio-economic impact of mobile phones on Indian agriculture. ICRIER Working Paper 246. 2010;1-53.
14. Saravanan R, Veerabhadraiah V. Information source utilisation by farmers in Andhra Pradesh. Tropical Agricultural Research. 2003;15:232-238.
15. Dubey AK, Srivastava JP, Sharma VK. Attitude of respondents towards technology transfer through Krishi Vigyan Kendras. Journal of Progressive Agriculture. 2008;8(2):187-190.
16. Makar M, Yadav MK. Extent of adoption of organic farming practices among tribal farmers. Agriculture Update. 2019;14(3):268-272.
17. Pandey DK, De HK. Information and communication technology for agricultural extension. Current Science. 2014;107(6):962-967.