Hill Publishing Group | contact@hillpublisher.com

Hill Publishing Group

Location:Home / Journals / International Journal of Food Science and Agriculture /


Impact Assessment of Extension Program on Hybrid Rice Adoption in Myanmar

Date: August 30,2019 |Hits: 1446 Download PDF How to cite this paper

Phyu L. Myint 1,*, Orachos Napasintuwong 2, Naing K. Win 3

1 Staff Officer, Extension Division, Department of Agriculture (DOA), Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation (MOALI), 15011 Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar.

2 Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Faculty of Economics, Kasetsart University, 10900 Bangkok, Thailand.

3 Director General, Department of Agricultural Research (DAR), Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation (MOALI), Yezin, Myanmar.

*Corresponding author: Phyu Lay MYINT, Email: phyulaymyint1980@gmail.com


In Myanmar, almost all of research activities are centered on Extension Division that organized with versatile agricultural specialists who are most likely to distribute research activities and new innovation technologies to remote areas. Pearl Thwe hybrid rice seed production was introduced in 2011/2012 in monsoon, for poverty alleviation and better living standard of farmers due to its higher yield. Sown area however is very limited to adopt. The purposes of this study are to evaluate the impact assessment of extension program by benefit-cost ratio (B:C), and to examine the most effective methodologies by marginal effect. The seasonal data (580 sample sizes) were collected in 58 Townships of four State and Regions, from 2011/2012 to 2015/2016. The results showed that annual average growth rate of Pearl Thwe adoption in Nay Pyi Taw, Kachin, Kayin, Chin, Tanintharyi, Bago and Magway Region/State are satisfied while the rest State and Region are highly unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, Sagaing, Mandalay, Mon, Shan and Ayeyarwaddy Region/State increased adoption areas yearly even having decreasing growth rate. Among still operating various extension methods in Myanmar, field day, media and field-trial are the best, and demonstration and farmer-field-school are also satisfied whilst integrated method, workshop, other method (traditionally), training and group discussion methods are unsatisfactory for hybrid rice adoption, in accordance with cost (applied extension methodologies) and benefit (Pearl Thwe’ adoption). By the perception and perception score of Township Officer, farmer field school, workshop, other method, integrated method, the media were unacknowledged, and market access and input are constraint factors while technical assistance and source of seed are most likely convenient factors. In order to promote the reliable extension methodologies in Myanmar, the policy makers should try to be more familiar to the media and farmer-field-school to farmers as field day, on farm-trial and demonstration.


[1]   Alaston, J. M., G.W. Norton, P.G. Pardey, M. Morris, M. Alvarez, J. Corven and A. Moral Rama. (1995). Science under scarcity: principles and practice for agricultural research evaluation and priority setting. Cornell University Publishing. 

[2]   Cellini, S. R and J. E. Kee. (2010). Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis. Handbook of practical program evaluation.Retrieved from: http://supportlocaleconomy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/74-Cost-Benefit-andBreakdown-for-ASP.pdf 

[3]   Cho, K. M. (2002, May). Training needs of agricultural extension agents in Myanmar. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Conference of Association for International Agricultural and Extension Education (AIAEE), Durban, South Africa (pp. 72-80).https://www.aiaee.org/attachments/article/1322/cho72-80.pdf 

[4]   Denning, G., K. Baroang and T.M. Sandar. (2013). Rice Productivity Improvement in Myanmar. United State Agency International Development. Food Security Group, Michigan State University. 

[5]   Extension Division, Department of Agriculture. (2012. 2013. 2014). Annual Report. Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation, Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar. 

[6]    Gautam, M. (2000). Agricultural extension: The Kenya experience: An impact evaluation. World Bank Publications. 

[7]  Horstkotte-Wesseler, G., M. Maredia, D. Byerlee and G. Alex (2000). Ex Ante economic analysis in AKIS projects: Methods and guidelines for good practice. Retrieved from http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search. do?recordID=US2014605060 

[8]   Hussain, S. S., D. Byerlee and P. W. Heisey. (1994). Impacts of the training and visit extension system on farmers' knowledge and adoption of technology: Evidence from Pakistan. Agricultural Economics, 10(1), 39-47. http://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0169515094900388 

[9]   Luukkainen, J. (2012). A Comparison of Extension Methods Used by Different Agricultural Extension Service Providers in Nyandarua County, Kenya. Retrieved from http://www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/49890 

[10]  Morris, M. L, R. B. Tripp and A. A. Dankyi. (1999). Adoption and impacts of improved maize production technology: A case study of the Ghana Grains Development Project. 

[11]  Nigussie, T and D. Mulat. (2003). The productivity and profitability of wheat and teff technologies: comparison between extension and non-extension plots in three selected villages of Ethiopia. In Proceedings of the National Workshop on Technological Progress in Ethiopian Agriculture, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 

[12]  Oakley, P and C. Garforth. (1985). Guide to extension training (No. 11). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.  FAO. [13] Ponniah, A., R. Puskur, S. Workneh and D.  Hoekstra. (2008). Concepts and practices in agricultural extension in developing countries: A source book.  International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and Nairobi: International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). Washington, DC: Publishinng. 

[14] Rice Division, Department of Agriculture, (2015). Annual Report. Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation, Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar. [15] Wale, E and A. Yalew. (2007). Farmers' variety attribute preferences: implications for breeding priority setting and agricultural extension policy in Ethiopia. African Development Review, 19(2), 379-396. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/10.1111/j.1467-8268.2007.00167.x/full 

[16] Win, N. K. (2015). 2014/2015 Report on hybrid rice seed production in Myanmar. Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation, Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar.

How to cite this paper

Impact Assessment of Extension Program on Hybrid Rice Adoption in Myanmar

How to cite this paper: MYINT PL., Napasintuwong O., KYI WIN N. (2019) Impact Assessment of Extension Program on Hybrid Rice Adoption in Myanmar. International Journal of Food Science and Agriculture, 3(3), 158-169.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/ijfsa.2019.09.003

Volumes & Issues

Free HPG Newsletters

Add your e-mail address to receive free newsletters from Hill Publishing Group.

Contact us

Hill Publishing Group

8825 53rd Ave

Elmhurst, NY 11373, USA

E-mail: contact@hillpublisher.com

Copyright © 2019 Hill Publishing Group Inc. All Rights Reserved.