<%BANNER%>

Perceptions of Livestock Extension Education Delivery and Globalization Effects among Dairy Farmers in the North Coast o...

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110114_AAAAEK INGEST_TIME 2011-01-14T22:25:47Z PACKAGE UFE0007521_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 71909 DFID F20110114_AACSSZ ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH toro_e_Page_045.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
af4009229a6d53d25a3b346dc43b84a7
SHA-1
a7f198552bb4f7c02b998b3a99aadab310c6320d
61473 F20110114_AACSUC toro_e_Page_100.jpg
0c594f79ca62626735a524302be82da9
1df6fecac2f36f34bb8243ae625aa72d6eb4e008
69722 F20110114_AACSTN toro_e_Page_068.jpg
87629784047b8b26373ac831ac522ea8
066812a7213b747a4b1b45b2d6c80c1c679ad042
72201 F20110114_AACSUD toro_e_Page_101.jpg
01e7b97965428a88bb72f07defa003af
f8e7002486e6bca13a079a76bfccdbf20b83f4f0
72866 F20110114_AACSTO toro_e_Page_069.jpg
52a7af846601ebb517f170b5cda29ba7
af08d20a1080040e375840fee7accbf008cdfc4b
70108 F20110114_AACSUE toro_e_Page_102.jpg
ecdc186d231b14769e2cb830c0d7242e
6b3538ba700cf8648103424ac3cb6e2a5b6fe657
70380 F20110114_AACSTP toro_e_Page_076.jpg
bf5f11686a260118227d2885d3c6414d
f94bc06903d3f6eff553fa678faf36cfd8907c8c
72460 F20110114_AACSUF toro_e_Page_104.jpg
96fff05ae8b9d6eead3c1cc6d814fcc5
d74db2af764de6565c1375fdee96aee9b91e1f41
71372 F20110114_AACSTQ toro_e_Page_079.jpg
c8a1759cbae0a5e96807e9fb0d78c79f
09c92c2420afa9a45b1905c2f3e998902577e0d4
71043 F20110114_AACSUG toro_e_Page_109.jpg
42ee12f0471cdb9b1bed8508e4c5ddb3
af07d51f581b08b1e01290cd12c64f0d94772a2a
69346 F20110114_AACSTR toro_e_Page_081.jpg
8e70b153cb8c16bac6f1139c51f014f5
a410f7eb86488c787f8a83ba05e492ea3ec0a3a0
25271604 F20110114_AACTAA toro_e_Page_086.tif
e3e0b5ed086c7e8c1ed3455927bd326d
c99fa329f5cea53e31612761d78b98079b041cd7
72812 F20110114_AACSUH toro_e_Page_114.jpg
0186ed828fa7a96aa6539f4b02494c07
2879b6498e25673cd2706b9bc6437f2222f30007
60358 F20110114_AACSTS toro_e_Page_083.jpg
85f40ae603adc5bf29d7c5a34a5ca5ca
9fce048ab41e01f03a919b60e6662e50dcc5cad1
F20110114_AACTAB toro_e_Page_087.tif
933aa19570b7ca2ba371e37716fac909
2b010be928c55dce9bdbba1b94ea150f5c20c201
86632 F20110114_AACSUI toro_e_Page_117.jpg
2eddb9820959f6f0aa0019360328084e
a96c81ec888b3655a182731b74b9985768bcaec1
58645 F20110114_AACSTT toro_e_Page_084.jpg
a57300046a756d75da64e10b7c570152
71e18b884b6c94f4ab31df348248a23840296e3d
F20110114_AACTAC toro_e_Page_088.tif
0db9045a036337785b2bca69bfb83b2b
cd0b3dc3941b7ad7dbba2865a32884a94d2da823
55104 F20110114_AACSUJ toro_e_Page_118.jpg
ca8e98cc684b38d2f6e95cfb6faf4eaa
8761f26615ac318ecaf493b530f889376aa22f45
71940 F20110114_AACSTU toro_e_Page_085.jpg
bafded7d9a2e9f939fc26b6d23bda71e
589f9538fabaf154c1bba83d99dd08abf1f5dfd6
F20110114_AACTAD toro_e_Page_089.tif
def23921c42a25b957ce8f23ad73536d
ce215694f14cca0d7f6ddcf4dd760d73135cdab6
41638 F20110114_AACSUK toro_e_Page_119.jpg
2cce8bb3548f1a0b00fb7f3b86db62d8
e69a3b2da0f72b70333919afb51a523af99e52ee
64207 F20110114_AACSTV toro_e_Page_086.jpg
2c516c0b5b87e380388cd392f3c2686f
103ed6d9622a820c577a538109b4e5ccf7d6b352
F20110114_AACTAE toro_e_Page_092.tif
a0cc64beb4715aff7afe1739aeff4ecc
3f20c1c873af74713d39fc0d4303be855b5e8e15
60535 F20110114_AACSUL toro_e_Page_120.jpg
acbd74fcfbc543a580c9f13e361e65d2
d0aa8454ccbc9e1dd4e190615a83b7bc6ce6a7b3
67247 F20110114_AACSTW toro_e_Page_088.jpg
5d4f066d7c19b2a93cae082a9f86878a
90a37233c9e874b656c0b77d5af027f809a65ecd
1053954 F20110114_AACTAF toro_e_Page_098.tif
654231567d781d110c6598219e253c01
ba719c9af40c9c8128425bcf5a5641c547946c9c
98956 F20110114_AACSVA toro_e_Page_142.jpg
764e6a498612cbea68e7477c0c644085
2197f8a460f1be0055f46176bd3bf0e4eade4d3e
68499 F20110114_AACSUM toro_e_Page_121.jpg
e3ae0e67057f225b237c76aa03b567f1
ee8f04f8de8d6e635d7724604922f53ea400f587
64558 F20110114_AACSTX toro_e_Page_092.jpg
2ab9a486e1ddec8e158d395e86a02f20
3d891d1bc39c5aa323c7def591e6315c4e8acdfa
F20110114_AACTAG toro_e_Page_100.tif
7e100fca3c1c09a36af4dbd9601d4e48
90f4899011d51b74af74ad692264777ca7635ac9
6107 F20110114_AACSVB toro_e_Page_002.jp2
1d5cc6d2a9e6c5b0f317dc85eeeb573b
0a77254b9cc5cf2e16ca2abc65099b7a873df6c5
70348 F20110114_AACSTY toro_e_Page_093.jpg
b1c8817e24f2651542edb10bb8a745ee
4a43f35d50f009326cb5d36dc7fdf3ad83af6adf
F20110114_AACTAH toro_e_Page_103.tif
1acc456be01c189911c4080daf058234
f23aa8806709850c833795e97d6d013a08dc1e00
7147 F20110114_AACSVC toro_e_Page_003.jp2
ec6fafbe88b521ef1865c54750d55ce1
01af3dcedfc91bf8e1254a458f531beb012de093
44127 F20110114_AACSUN toro_e_Page_122.jpg
4efb23d43b31781c5977b06fc6b1c1d1
0d6d47d110adfc53a93b9356f4d7118199a55b28
73475 F20110114_AACSTZ toro_e_Page_094.jpg
0ec86ac3fa10c5a9a6676c9a95036d86
a7e2bc5694008d0416848b4cad4e746f011d01ee
F20110114_AACTAI toro_e_Page_104.tif
5bb4995596022cb325866b1290922a80
4e1ddd2b011f719cba4d9e624aac52237a8430a5
1051976 F20110114_AACSVD toro_e_Page_005.jp2
3210c679cf3fe86338bfdd9b0022b15e
70cedea58a3dcab52124eac2154f8145f7ba024b
47041 F20110114_AACSUO toro_e_Page_124.jpg
cad139f9320322edefbf53d82aa171f5
0f64e75d5d82d7526b3fe64eeb7d9bb52ea6752c
F20110114_AACTAJ toro_e_Page_105.tif
d0a71c0ba85225b788e98e09aba903cb
c564eab8ef9df554207c3531b0883355ba98365e
1051911 F20110114_AACSVE toro_e_Page_006.jp2
65b2c7abc4d7f31d7dad48897142c6b5
dbf05461d952d86b0102233b6044c8d5558ebe20
37835 F20110114_AACSUP toro_e_Page_126.jpg
09886ffc810c14649316061bd8622b92
8f031c0b8f50e4587160d0f5ad446e81df7de316
F20110114_AACTAK toro_e_Page_107.tif
068e0601a2f00a8e439c5e30bddf53b1
e431930834a7c19c99c947242fc927b24c8b47dd
643101 F20110114_AACSVF toro_e_Page_007.jp2
1c926710cc33a379511945c53d394422
31e1c39c0967b14d267e171138acd381bef2336b
25939 F20110114_AACSUQ toro_e_Page_127.jpg
007f62a44cdb0714658fff666586f8dc
a7568c515361d878b29608ff64e2a76e004d58b0
F20110114_AACTAL toro_e_Page_108.tif
41a503788ad0225b4a908a74f2f463eb
9d37ca688bdde54b5237cfde408c54ff019b9242
93957 F20110114_AACSVG toro_e_Page_012.jp2
43c7bcc78fbc093717e2ec1d5b3d770e
1106a779e9e2cdd40c7f8dab551036db065078a4
34537 F20110114_AACSUR toro_e_Page_128.jpg
0a8b15c457b0eef406c6123e6ab8fc4e
a6091c9ee262739f465f9dc74fc2327bb033b233
F20110114_AACTBA toro_e_Page_135.tif
5ea22189c23cf167cda13e903359891b
0ea310da713cedb1d5a8a89bbd392706bd634477
F20110114_AACTAM toro_e_Page_111.tif
159f46ae017af152e9af31957a9d41e3
cb83a1b38e8183db6635174560ee661121c736e6
114051 F20110114_AACSVH toro_e_Page_015.jp2
d651cf996624bea728eb85948f9fc55d
a4a12cdc64441eaf7a272a8866397d24454694a5
40017 F20110114_AACSUS toro_e_Page_129.jpg
80b18909fd3926d4741d51ec3a19590f
a63b567233b3107deb1101b1a45e7020306d2eb4
F20110114_AACTBB toro_e_Page_136.tif
0e8d3b1df94a26d31d1d19fd7b114c08
2056dfeec139b3d774cda0e4249a1f6116e6c816
F20110114_AACTAN toro_e_Page_112.tif
a8253068b6af1dd2661e8bb5f56cf148
206672d9bec5ca69c7a9557e57f6e958fe255527
39414 F20110114_AACSUT toro_e_Page_130.jpg
46eca2a4711dc78f77a65a0d06dec421
83b090298ffabf10f03dc1574fbfcb54c918aafa
F20110114_AACTBC toro_e_Page_137.tif
30a99536fe7e9aaba350365563a2a43f
3ef9d9194315935a08751748e130dbe3b8787009
F20110114_AACTAO toro_e_Page_113.tif
923301f16ae6b455848eb390298186a5
688cb7483c8bda2108f671c63d55d1c13ffa0c3e
111252 F20110114_AACSVI toro_e_Page_016.jp2
521b977fe5f4a8bf8376573e6b9f21ef
9c422327857b1b5c423724682703aee26e7e5a56
36710 F20110114_AACSUU toro_e_Page_133.jpg
7d8b8121d359386a5680221418ac05de
9a2a78370615a355ac526d97967944ec2b2e9646
F20110114_AACTBD toro_e_Page_139.tif
07c59fcfc7aef4379541edd676dd643e
b56912e16d00f07edd4cd80ea8d560528bd1cdf9
F20110114_AACTAP toro_e_Page_114.tif
85e6388bf3f3b576e662e3fbec6d32cf
921b32452da12d4ecd40dd390066271c1b2e2ea4
109697 F20110114_AACSVJ toro_e_Page_020.jp2
3888e609f62a85ce08e0bb59281b45d5
f48040111d2d7cced0bb356b9c56e4fd87cad44f
42345 F20110114_AACSUV toro_e_Page_134.jpg
7225ef27224adb4ff50519acdf08884c
270aa432c84188d91aca924965f045be978ef883
F20110114_AACTBE toro_e_Page_142.tif
969ba4409b39b7b95a011b48fdfc84ad
2641326f53f35f80f48f698f0563b1f8f6812ca7
F20110114_AACTAQ toro_e_Page_115.tif
6bcec0bf80c6313dfbfe4a36b4efceb3
9a42e2042e211daffee92d761f3899bd0e71fd20
101412 F20110114_AACSVK toro_e_Page_021.jp2
348fc88bc4088cad00e4626ab65c5b6e
73ae88271d7809d91124631a0b49c69a99726b14
79816 F20110114_AACSUW toro_e_Page_136.jpg
b3b6b682f8580589d090e22dd06a7ee9
f2592b7bb5ad0f45a47425d757045887865c10bf
F20110114_AACTBF toro_e_Page_144.tif
ddc4636f943e126b4edc34e54564e73d
d02460def86aae239642e93a72cf07653ccbc21c
F20110114_AACTAR toro_e_Page_116.tif
f72b007c46eea9a7ea17c49f95c9e4d9
97212a491d0c9dbbaa52c36c1fb2c87f1ae2b2a3
104998 F20110114_AACSVL toro_e_Page_022.jp2
cbe8a43be1a4b599cdb65546939e0fd2
e1ab778ae0cf57931c68c798544d36208dfa2a0b
99442 F20110114_AACSUX toro_e_Page_139.jpg
40344acd8e9f32236f005bf669cfaf74
11fd099b6689bd465ec6265db6973a59c0fdfd54
9475 F20110114_AACTBG toro_e_Page_001.pro
21eab878de074429aaf6b9a53bfc1162
ddbae6f7090b599aa7a127b8550759a62535411f
109538 F20110114_AACSWA toro_e_Page_049.jp2
33940a7bcf3ee05b0282ecf708584585
06bc591f70fe8820a446de72cca6abb900a2cf05
F20110114_AACTAS toro_e_Page_118.tif
cacb083e95e3258668a7c10163e27fda
398684fb013825e8c73aeb7c77b83b5d39095836
110298 F20110114_AACSVM toro_e_Page_023.jp2
a6cdb462d707f53a4be4f57dce8fdc01
ae2970c64420b1ee55baf7ac13c682253636d4fe
95857 F20110114_AACSUY toro_e_Page_140.jpg
c472a15078bfaf468fa096eac1bca895
5cd60bc2ec80af0e01c482448319a9b22026cab7
80956 F20110114_AACTBH toro_e_Page_005.pro
1dbce4d19fac3f4d2cda023617548cb6
49d2128a7c0e99de4cecb9bf89fef5a0ba6f92a7
110758 F20110114_AACSWB toro_e_Page_050.jp2
aa8ff4935620fae8cdf47e4acfb8d000
fd50fb0a2f3e98a7f5cdbad34508e97e85339bad
F20110114_AACTAT toro_e_Page_119.tif
893f8210cd9c664e798e2f61a8b8261c
b60ed332382d3a42b224ace8561b519f069cc1a5
103586 F20110114_AACSVN toro_e_Page_025.jp2
215454972fc170d08d2496e4d2337a7d
b557d067c6f65b07af5aa05a625470ba126b8624
104858 F20110114_AACSUZ toro_e_Page_141.jpg
d8fa08e4e8c06b27bd87e442ce1e49d1
4df868a2cd1be691f3ace3f84cb8b7d05111b132
57717 F20110114_AACTBI toro_e_Page_008.pro
fca129521593a41183bdc2bd9ea6b5be
e5a0d89c2c364602ac62ddb7ea8c750ee42adad7
108358 F20110114_AACSWC toro_e_Page_051.jp2
2e0a57a56eb2fb80329b28d85af8bcd8
1c249bf914b710cc211efc693223669870eb2066
F20110114_AACTAU toro_e_Page_120.tif
8c36c863afd9ead0ced7701546704f38
a4752f3c0579515ec427f564963869e207878b5d
33597 F20110114_AACTBJ toro_e_Page_009.pro
cfb95b25d2ec64745b71edeb91aa0754
f14f8e11215b92ca0d249403d061513732ebe968
118060 F20110114_AACSWD toro_e_Page_053.jp2
45963b62a5c3b7cae01387a72c09d6ba
f54fa297fcbc213ccb1687d5fb6b49dcaef71c84
F20110114_AACTAV toro_e_Page_121.tif
dad29dfcab90138e1161287f9ee9766d
9bc9f91b0beebee8b0a8d0f299f424f883cbb701
87118 F20110114_AACSVO toro_e_Page_027.jp2
6bdcf841e06768e962b0beea2e0e7cd4
afb948748f24ac966e0f11c4e6ced15e1acabdfb
38823 F20110114_AACTBK toro_e_Page_010.pro
5e8c497824dfb4990c6586a03529fcf4
0440a1e294c08992b1069e27c1fef3c5d3a4fd6a
105677 F20110114_AACSWE toro_e_Page_058.jp2
5d66ed8d268a5f19c5c6c1661415f6a5
f6c91e0568d84e917abfa86302b70c2eddf8cd43
F20110114_AACTAW toro_e_Page_124.tif
f76078289b83c07ff14f65392a682f27
b4073fa09310fb56629d3b709edc0fae84a32644
101755 F20110114_AACSVP toro_e_Page_029.jp2
a7dbeafa593105c18b15c22175c3991c
df42d77a61d43e8b06f85d773a1db99ca86a98cd
42460 F20110114_AACTBL toro_e_Page_012.pro
196badc3a63a6693028324bf3d2c2296
52f6cba6e8e8155673927dcd76ec96c7058afaeb
109407 F20110114_AACSWF toro_e_Page_059.jp2
8f0845a506af01c19a51d757fd945ea7
4cb1d750fcec1cbac1e3cd7fed9917aca7078811
F20110114_AACTAX toro_e_Page_126.tif
6f25ee85b25c9c23a6e7dbf212002238
69d84b12fe77de85e00e6b961ae91acb5d88850a
121038 F20110114_AACSVQ toro_e_Page_030.jp2
1029a0b41c3bf88a69915f677dc87da3
6193775826eb4cce2c7fa1f10cc18e28a1d24351
50739 F20110114_AACTCA toro_e_Page_049.pro
8fdc304a34d807feb4d58ed40db4dcee
f9f14878fbbd1f5e16341d2962c1027bcfd01119
49064 F20110114_AACTBM toro_e_Page_014.pro
97ccdcfe6a4c34ccf20f55d7be0e6ed3
29efee4da4be0ffea0cf2ed245b220c6cb9db086
110189 F20110114_AACSWG toro_e_Page_060.jp2
d89d0f3a0b1698a02323177252987d67
9c39c1bd1af1d748b1f3c7cf398b3915d561867c
111235 F20110114_AACSVR toro_e_Page_032.jp2
c0c275b3c47c6b465f232e19a3a306a2
fb049e1a6e969832aeafbf51706ab9fb036b4849
50931 F20110114_AACTCB toro_e_Page_050.pro
43c6bd10166ab0331cd257b9abbf851e
e208c7a4776fd66a9a44fed97532aa2a98d79b62
52527 F20110114_AACTBN toro_e_Page_015.pro
ea35eb1938b9f0d24796eb8afda363bf
fa8b3c00f79ef434f388f9d9c1d6c842a6b91ba5
1051824 F20110114_AACSWH toro_e_Page_062.jp2
6c7ed1dfd2a6880be896d4cc2590dda4
1ccdeacdc1ce4410749005ae5b5a6213363cd87b
F20110114_AACTAY toro_e_Page_131.tif
7ec548f3b5254f01e29121f695f978d4
44dfd320eef03020930616c3648c738f60e53652
112825 F20110114_AACSVS toro_e_Page_034.jp2
f2ff30ff397bbc81752d99a16385ff6a
0ed5563b20bc15b5410b79f12d799183eb82d7a6
52760 F20110114_AACTCC toro_e_Page_054.pro
00069742564cb4f93be8882e5af0f131
e057c07f908ad888b4133476146d36cd254a6d51
51428 F20110114_AACTBO toro_e_Page_020.pro
7b856dc511763274fec5e3cf6f5365a1
45009aa72b1347173f0b6b3cdb6dfd3f6ffcd7f1
110835 F20110114_AACSWI toro_e_Page_063.jp2
247d7221cd641576f5e852d3f8dec88b
b449dd625ba2afa443b54d3951cfed4a9ac3355d
F20110114_AACTAZ toro_e_Page_134.tif
2185a1bd92489c9d2234219f6a405afa
f87a614eba80516f5cb7ce8a0c949b77ac459c8d
90471 F20110114_AACSVT toro_e_Page_035.jp2
3cd1d00c61e3d139ed5f3db4afb9b510
91621bf96ed2ba61925a4d9f6b8f36ad448a1c12
51342 F20110114_AACTCD toro_e_Page_056.pro
dee7057eb650e9ac728904a4192e97b1
d1b66ea66101a95b38e1000fe1ff5009ceb1f052
48408 F20110114_AACTBP toro_e_Page_025.pro
a0a167797fce65ebd7c5256394753020
25ddfa904ab3447d16760b6b0940707848beedbd
118485 F20110114_AACSWJ toro_e_Page_064.jp2
1a225c8ca31d842c86ea2a37f95c29c0
0d652203bfafbd5b7f1f7b7a507b007a3ca1e8b3
110886 F20110114_AACSVU toro_e_Page_038.jp2
eebb099f9c865855bc29e2924536ac0e
870c074c265f6a2f9fbf4fa17fd159f7de319a86
51448 F20110114_AACTCE toro_e_Page_057.pro
6c6a1f1755ec4e4baf417982d6307198
9e9cff2861a6bef307ab33a72759bbab72d2972c
46236 F20110114_AACTBQ toro_e_Page_029.pro
6de9c36929357ec6cc4362501406b958
ee28916406114ff65aacf6fb6a78571b975b1b9b
938126 F20110114_AACSWK toro_e_Page_065.jp2
0a100cd34250a19392d6601abf7de988
a059a6a360f73918a622328c34cc326086964b2e
115939 F20110114_AACSVV toro_e_Page_040.jp2
65f8efedf0c7439c2296197dd9d3f1c7
887f8ab8f9a8f3bffbe5de642bafd33591f528b0
39204 F20110114_AACTBR toro_e_Page_033.pro
3d36fa4398d3f97cac154ff6f6feac42
9e4dc270047b0decb546343f2689ab1d403976c8
76257 F20110114_AACSWL toro_e_Page_071.jp2
2fb57edaf159625e83caf6d23df4e5b0
79deb73f7109779064a0f3ec6173d3e3545b178d
107727 F20110114_AACSVW toro_e_Page_043.jp2
c89f53480df0799d641192b491af6fee
59bb721a4f4aab6cecbf9c7dbba213d2210671d9
48490 F20110114_AACTCF toro_e_Page_058.pro
6a82cebe3f6943d4e194aa1b6d2a6f08
e75bc8661c8945ab1ac79060ef9b173a4a480ca5
888068 F20110114_AACSXA toro_e_Page_095.jp2
4e78b3f6d57c9e169a196ee95b725166
9ca72f360d04b2739f788dfb36df4b84495d3b11
50643 F20110114_AACTBS toro_e_Page_034.pro
11566c5176ede6e95113c4aaa27432f1
cf8b35ff1567ad6e39f44fce4a564974e9584f69
108581 F20110114_AACSWM toro_e_Page_073.jp2
25e5e121c6ce0213a6fae48145280f62
a389a8d49a733276decd8b425bf73736d5f8d3c9
111999 F20110114_AACSVX toro_e_Page_044.jp2
0f816f393b4d8733217516a78f6078cc
52724017aa8aca0d34ae945b2546e1f7cb9c6a17
50140 F20110114_AACTCG toro_e_Page_059.pro
9843b406729322ab9ea63226d3746adf
e8f3916ac1cec180b927b5223569f3f4e071a816
110435 F20110114_AACSXB toro_e_Page_101.jp2
1b8951cea551b8183666ddd115d56183
30f9ef7991318bfc37f4af4c39196205055fe800
41522 F20110114_AACTBT toro_e_Page_035.pro
e2057d6c4a500708885d1e07ca534e5d
70ac3c6c57b0c731ddc48cd366bf82c5da5990b1
897254 F20110114_AACSWN toro_e_Page_075.jp2
e9a46505a5d95953a7db9b8e3559a7c9
a364839eed723dbdda8c58548cce8f3cb752276f
110206 F20110114_AACSVY toro_e_Page_046.jp2
8b159b092c872ea6c409c83d2c6ee527
e9f0eacd6572ad281a425f2bd98f6a160e4259ad
57665 F20110114_AACTCH toro_e_Page_062.pro
f1b8b38c5f3f0dcd6037f7955c0d8955
9c90ebc1a416f6d9e23397d7e40f9851b0a353de
949777 F20110114_AACSXC toro_e_Page_102.jp2
cc381152439c1ed185716d8ccc8dc19a
46eaa7d3020e0ba9162a497b1a0930df789e51ca
50470 F20110114_AACTBU toro_e_Page_036.pro
c7e1b968e04e62a564cae1a485e91110
9ce3e9751395e174fe3404ef31d4aeb4f1878801
107265 F20110114_AACSWO toro_e_Page_076.jp2
be42146b0e90c0d271b7dbcfbbf1f952
6cfc176a2bcb8b6f944b6acbcc5657733609bd3c
115017 F20110114_AACSVZ toro_e_Page_048.jp2
8239ffb59e9353a3de1464db2864567a
bea9aee4b8b6cf7e8c9319425c288582f07d7bce
51816 F20110114_AACTCI toro_e_Page_063.pro
21c75b5b310429ef2b3833ae98440fbd
66d42414218a67fe227ad034529dcff119cfa109
89049 F20110114_AACSXD toro_e_Page_105.jp2
366df316efd0f89960c16848035908d9
40ab4e2ed6d97e68fd8a0ee79c44ea1fec2fbbc3
49369 F20110114_AACTBV toro_e_Page_037.pro
ab72483807f71933162b6074f31850a9
b27f0c8c247cd051cfab9c5b9cc3e7b0319a6c27
56973 F20110114_AACTCJ toro_e_Page_064.pro
a320a3eca76cb0d39be201daa821409c
e9f4667015697f608f4bef70222905cd4e3aae7d
110716 F20110114_AACSXE toro_e_Page_106.jp2
1e149d40fcb18b1139f83f711c7b246a
02b0a0a3ca070b196a0fb6819037c11ff5fcd3ae
50945 F20110114_AACTBW toro_e_Page_039.pro
a0a8c5887c5eb203ece0b6b10e169794
fa9f1bb8644154c33937eae6e7f46df978288aea
103491 F20110114_AACSWP toro_e_Page_078.jp2
d103f26a5d9d2e8a8fb77c9b9552cab6
ad614b38fba44c0f4087a29944e1fc45b00109a8
46597 F20110114_AACTCK toro_e_Page_067.pro
55735137bbf8fdb01929c4bb230fac97
d7a383f93f06ee745ff91b1167c5909280e693bf
108898 F20110114_AACSXF toro_e_Page_107.jp2
754c1bc292efe6b11484eae57c328f68
def4c05e5fa7e21e8b77d793bf155e11cc5d448c
50378 F20110114_AACTBX toro_e_Page_041.pro
444f2d714ede6a83319da331f215211c
4eb63009a7950cd641d560f9459a96319a0b2c48
107560 F20110114_AACSWQ toro_e_Page_079.jp2
07c9915283e99d263d48fc624ffd1b6a
2f040b6c6f2a0800057cb6f5aa57e6c311aaba15
49928 F20110114_AACTCL toro_e_Page_068.pro
1501b9ea61460b9e828ebb22fd40a967
be72305f56e217453732e14e71e5a5214dc52ba0
107304 F20110114_AACSXG toro_e_Page_109.jp2
101f25561cf61140553e501906d0ec50
7dead6523841a997bcc45e2f697aff6c1346878d
51873 F20110114_AACTBY toro_e_Page_044.pro
767047d5f8a3d61da895fe8a83a3b066
ec5d2548d740dce1964796c7d3dd679bb6500718
104464 F20110114_AACSWR toro_e_Page_080.jp2
d38047038d5aab93de3806219bfd1fc1
6e6030cdba29ab5e6cb237431c33838cacb004d8
45268 F20110114_AACTDA toro_e_Page_104.pro
db81b753b620513a2158981b75fdff32
6ecabfe5571468829b26d94113a7ac9c18c07063
49524 F20110114_AACTCM toro_e_Page_070.pro
907892c74c04a4a1cedb9c1b6f4c85ed
27edab2fa9c62e520a751a56e5145d0a340f948a
107189 F20110114_AACSXH toro_e_Page_110.jp2
ac14010bc8a265689762f8d03c3b0b40
34400ee6d05bcc7ead9a33e348698fdcd54accaa
50774 F20110114_AACSWS toro_e_Page_082.jp2
3f193daa11fff10d2e848438ad55d190
c7bc8407830b4c615a3670f81db60b41eb519009
40023 F20110114_AACTDB toro_e_Page_105.pro
91e66e50c22b2e720c2173585e9c0a27
4c700cb0cc4d5b1b9654fc46f654ba3df21b4c4c
43903 F20110114_AACTCN toro_e_Page_075.pro
06df803130b15d1afa2252530926b2a6
2d9e971f63d16f9a21949285753320881bdaa98b
107802 F20110114_AACSXI toro_e_Page_112.jp2
963f65c47298101a737d219c677fae12
e1bb2d15207dc388d7940ce645cbe09902074ead
49029 F20110114_AACTBZ toro_e_Page_047.pro
4920d9ea5f9b9082cc23257168cb438f
e383011ebadde5a28689637ae34c2d18d5880c10
89698 F20110114_AACSWT toro_e_Page_083.jp2
e41ca1455f6988f40f8e3ffb33be12ab
a2858f829769dc89725bd3d84b3fa5c9facfeda6
1137 F20110114_AACSAA toro_e_Page_134.txt
453f570bfa1bc8e0449f7df3f195b726
0f4a96ce025123b3cacab9ab0fec0428dac4af8d
50578 F20110114_AACTDC toro_e_Page_106.pro
16e4d3ebc02a42cfe0bca7eff3fd547f
b6440bdb30d9f15096fbde48c9de823cbe92878b
50016 F20110114_AACTCO toro_e_Page_079.pro
d7d0cfa505d0195e3af8bb1f9fb4aef1
20ff3ed965bdfb56ad7b8e9ce1f365e0fa975f88
110094 F20110114_AACSXJ toro_e_Page_114.jp2
3205c0a0147235f08725470642fcb743
f7fdc88b8b47f36b5e996615e51363b9553da7d2
762094 F20110114_AACSWU toro_e_Page_084.jp2
3e85f31c609103ba23e65a0d9a5f69b8
3cf346537d4b938dbebf26842d0b399879218180
56871 F20110114_AACSAB toro_e_Page_033.jpg
d4ab83ca3287348c49510e9e019c3844
95965bc05e41efc08a8207b4bdc350d7b738dc35
49597 F20110114_AACTDD toro_e_Page_107.pro
03bde01e0a8b7d00b9c31c6e55baa0e5
164057e45928d50f6348a0811fed84cef36e0dfb
48367 F20110114_AACTCP toro_e_Page_081.pro
f6f4b0ca49b2360b926fcd714a930006
da73051feb21c9ddbaa1b168ce3f38283d34a5d1
104742 F20110114_AACSXK toro_e_Page_115.jp2
c2f5f8366d293262cfb1879d2399209e
602da3130687852947eab5102fc2424d81114144
935918 F20110114_AACSWV toro_e_Page_087.jp2
a1b6c95bf50622052c0ceba61ec8602b
4be9d1fef7648b43754f59818f57555f75397e40
49704 F20110114_AACSAC toro_e_Page_009.jpg
93b3c17efa9018a25844026187e4eb10
833cc583559ef06d95f55ae3550e53f2d7bf351d
49355 F20110114_AACTDE toro_e_Page_110.pro
f4cccd1aa50b4f727503d77836dc3377
61f504d770490c1c15424d0fad390e1127118b83
21949 F20110114_AACTCQ toro_e_Page_082.pro
67583ada604c56c97053c8c0a9d5dee5
9ba1be2ec71fd0705fb4dd2a4931e767541df3e6
130763 F20110114_AACSXL toro_e_Page_117.jp2
61595d3c32b4a16daf0c56a52359b4cc
2b331ef0a22a5b0ea5de196afa04edc070f58fe0
930219 F20110114_AACSWW toro_e_Page_089.jp2
e0ad546b7909adba7170ae493323ca88
e58928410a883dc3c5587498cba7f12d35d8d0c1
6652 F20110114_AACSAD toro_e_Page_032thm.jpg
64ba82b16a0e8cf7827c5d79c1fefaba
3971dff86022154070bff0f25d7c41ab59348c71
49844 F20110114_AACTDF toro_e_Page_113.pro
8eea564808d8f6842207c946b80a5143
f8546ac318a720585b26733a5aa39ce9f7cf6804
40777 F20110114_AACTCR toro_e_Page_083.pro
879fd101c0d65b94237f8a873478a628
783cbf6143d52f1305a3e2dba3d96e8c7f92e6ca
48118 F20110114_AACTDG toro_e_Page_115.pro
7b2db2377ec912765a90e2929de88259
e2a4c719549ffba402a0246e8bdefb1d3ae4be37
56447 F20110114_AACSXM toro_e_Page_119.jp2
3952847a1b587a6157c4faab64c935b0
d8dded70118ceb5253c1ecdc38d88e9197cb8a04
1024945 F20110114_AACSWX toro_e_Page_091.jp2
aabc4c9eb50edc36b9626e6f227ecb44
65daef8f73675d6500cfc6a2ba0e7f392b373ebe
66838 F20110114_AACSAE toro_e_Page_075.jpg
5f8de95dd00ae6ff23d4d05ed2d2e52a
f6d0cf464dd50564f95cee92c91abcbfac9e3f6e
1051942 F20110114_AACSYA toro_e_Page_143.jp2
89de8577f8d0453c0ba6367bad347b61
b71bc5b9d137c6b97c94c9b40ab4d794b71eba91
47966 F20110114_AACTCS toro_e_Page_084.pro
1d40cf3996b7f003c1d7b5c40708b2bf
ef097ab412993d404009a067b14bee473d7554d4
37253 F20110114_AACTDH toro_e_Page_118.pro
255f7d8c5a9c8cef081a1301a59735f8
36a27cf6cd4421bc3f4ea7a080f7eea8d92a37ac
824058 F20110114_AACSXN toro_e_Page_121.jp2
dd0f8924ff6463d22f0df61c760bcacf
86db8a6150839cc305c23177ef3598df8caaeb37
858514 F20110114_AACSWY toro_e_Page_092.jp2
99d703c4f912dd2eb2a8e2b061574d5b
c2b7e1c568e66049052dd766fb6912f3a184351b
7240 F20110114_AACSAF toro_e_Page_141thm.jpg
be06d52d038c4d4c5419d5c0451386ae
05baeeea88807f1300414ad1e6993c18e484c1af
33511 F20110114_AACSYB toro_e_Page_144.jp2
5e9b6d129a00d68483bdd7c289258f40
99c8380604be3e9bb7bf89e3f9a26f6971a6bac3
45828 F20110114_AACTCT toro_e_Page_087.pro
6a7178977382d45e4e8cda5ec8439107
ce0bedbc531bf70a6eb7a0065ed5149995b96a7a
34515 F20110114_AACTDI toro_e_Page_120.pro
54fbefe5416936d7319f8da14e1c0acc
81a9d149f1e64f204ab4d4473db40da6a89d4489
56386 F20110114_AACSXO toro_e_Page_122.jp2
5f76c10896cbcca30fa99d0f14927220
8c8900805de7e1b33d8850564d24a5927d182ea0
1013145 F20110114_AACSWZ toro_e_Page_094.jp2
03f807f60931a8468e6d548e1b3b22b9
e5bc1c3b8c8e66aa517a9dcd3027e43a9745204b
7424 F20110114_AACSAG toro_e_Page_143thm.jpg
c2b04b9572e1a7db2eb577cf45366404
8fdd9c23499a98a8f3a717465c7735b647b586cc
92553 F20110114_AACSYC toro_e_Page_145.jp2
64b42a1951eef1ac8432d3c916dc2b06
3a63bc1b18d8f0524158b00261e9173b2686757c
45286 F20110114_AACTCU toro_e_Page_089.pro
d133d8af29409188694b89ed636652a1
68675f1a92856ae70c8a8a472a78fcc6a5d66153
21543 F20110114_AACTDJ toro_e_Page_123.pro
ddbd574a2a00d231ab24d0ed9b7b2a75
17003929d95ddd1389b5882c0cc71900a2ad7812
48059 F20110114_AACSXP toro_e_Page_123.jp2
c72f518868fbce1a03d3cc36ea7c00ea
a17d267942bfc2eb7d9d2aebab3e5cf1f5216cbf
48820 F20110114_AACSAH toro_e_Page_085.pro
041aebfe9451ad41f13c39c7e3435f7d
49179f7aefee97760d61e8bddb946db1d9a8fdba
F20110114_AACSYD toro_e_Page_001.tif
add72192bafe4b467abbb9c704186eea
02a308419abb0a175850d958ffa3b4449c72bd57
50122 F20110114_AACTCV toro_e_Page_091.pro
d93b02337f5a7af5fad7c7b946530bc0
1ba07463fdc350c48454d7b87c3d6190797bd0fe
31822 F20110114_AACTDK toro_e_Page_125.pro
1ffbd0fd022aa367d5e5bcf2ccec72de
a26b47bbb011f5582ad7b8342908c79e1bb6df7b
51381 F20110114_AACSAI toro_e_Page_129.jp2
6c1b5e3c2f7ec3d64ba2aaccbb705b97
2e1185cca47e9f16eaee8619fed8cc40a6193075
F20110114_AACSYE toro_e_Page_002.tif
1a7c91aabc445653d668d5fe3dd0b1b8
5424bf275c3ea5723f1f433501fef25d748546b7
46125 F20110114_AACTCW toro_e_Page_092.pro
920a592afd532d29b613fca0c6f8ef6f
b7350496920463efe94ccca5990ac1411bf607c3
12531 F20110114_AACTDL toro_e_Page_128.pro
25afa7cfb2fc2e9f68852d6edfeac2dc
22f9275f8346f670c15b4ca8a17323753a68b66b
231200 F20110114_AACSXQ toro_e_Page_127.jp2
430d3db2ed4166efc3095162aa07ecc9
887659698ec30007e20de90bd0e8b2c8afb14ce4
64189 F20110114_AACSAJ toro_e_Page_072.jpg
26104b796ac5398cb1266c90e1f6ff83
4aa17e9c3e7f6f935e1657fc20184ea45cc1e8aa
F20110114_AACSYF toro_e_Page_005.tif
494f6c6b9fe286c5bec21a3a0820c176
caa9f7183d32cc7d8c7d412a374219338f8654f4
51725 F20110114_AACTCX toro_e_Page_097.pro
86cc77ac17f4d0e0e1dedf5ea799763b
d79addcaec0f795e90d0632c1ea0cbc823614f75
791 F20110114_AACTEA toro_e_Page_007.txt
ec820e2496d6153f0ca0d2c63c7f287f
2b28c7d803431bca874a75b21616cce5930955e1
21887 F20110114_AACTDM toro_e_Page_129.pro
d36c9593938da5f3cb358442f93a67f4
c753a9b09876521a708e36396ebcc60976476e24
46210 F20110114_AACSXR toro_e_Page_130.jp2
9bb45ab08e478578abbe5123799a7207
e98d5d80fa7ef1066130fca4ab440ad42bf8dc2e
106289 F20110114_AACSAK toro_e_Page_111.jp2
5134ca6ef3c4305547b94188478e4937
59ea1c88c8258aab4bc214531ab68e3b1fec62c9
F20110114_AACSYG toro_e_Page_006.tif
1d8eec48e9c5eb212698ed0ad11f8ec4
1ce4bfd7b1a11d76ee0a99e6569db16b1bf347a4
46302 F20110114_AACTCY toro_e_Page_099.pro
2c3cae83a105d91d3f07c6820d0382f5
090a818a3d68048814be9cc5007b3ff4e08a318e
2306 F20110114_AACTEB toro_e_Page_008.txt
24c71d119250a8c3783dd34979bd8d72
97a27c2df7ab4284b0204b5baa320485449af8c8
19832 F20110114_AACTDN toro_e_Page_130.pro
2a0a5aede343dc6d81f5440aff15dc66
c5def62ff0f980b28586bbf354079af393608461
57147 F20110114_AACSXS toro_e_Page_132.jp2
74b52162c152a1f52f065258c0268daf
7048613141f1bd2512fc2a786c15484cdf9e30f7
1997 F20110114_AACSAL toro_e_Page_106.txt
e2bca3cf3df0e9f47b0fb79e7e24b270
146a647dfb3951309199f7a6a32b55b66369f804
F20110114_AACSYH toro_e_Page_007.tif
c1f4a8e2075aa434c90077ec64c381da
782ca02c079edcf22e1176b1b00efbddc9b9fd74
50702 F20110114_AACTCZ toro_e_Page_103.pro
0e10cac68e3484afa647f2120197aead
7efac94b1eace69c87f82ed0ccc71d219c033a32
1344 F20110114_AACTEC toro_e_Page_009.txt
872ba391b233fac54c7dd0b7ad0322a5
b635cf9af33bb06aa24df4843b6d60e783aa7a06
20305 F20110114_AACTDO toro_e_Page_131.pro
83781f209a5af6cf57279b630ebbd309
51e17c2fada1b20dad96fcfca6d39677fbf96d4b
53357 F20110114_AACSXT toro_e_Page_134.jp2
6f3e1627ee29c19f88732b48ea2e34e2
17168f4115ae8f564ef299b2c1d908d51d663882
73070 F20110114_AACSBA toro_e_Page_016.jpg
3fa5c78771b74215faa5e4aa41a07930
2713db8bcc9c06f87e0d408a11aa085f2bde30fd
105345 F20110114_AACSAM toro_e_Page_108.jp2
e852fcc5479f8c574e81466f893471df
3adee6688d8408c8219bb4e6b431f69e14b22020
F20110114_AACSYI toro_e_Page_010.tif
da01480654a60e5115b90c154467569e
10d84ff73c89fb01943a723f05c4c1d224b04ede
1911 F20110114_AACTED toro_e_Page_011.txt
8038985304200aab99200e8168b930fe
a68c8df1d1f44290ad5e3e755e1665286a95e8f1
64133 F20110114_AACTDP toro_e_Page_137.pro
50dc0f935ece526642230a11d5505b15
ba8ebc2965af530c22d4577a1a8fa77e18312ddb
39421 F20110114_AACSXU toro_e_Page_135.jp2
27f548b0176503a37c8e975f87d5102c
faf168c1b65cb5c3a887bde8cb8ff171a82a8313
71487 F20110114_AACSBB toro_e_Page_017.jpg
4c39d11e0ecff3d1fe24beef3216354c
6b46609cdbc8b250c1ae4ce3f1966a984a3ff9ec
28218 F20110114_AACSAN toro_e_Page_124.pro
7edbbd3f18f7f37c6a176fe8074516a2
ffdda83ff938c95dc4a9d3be8cb3977dcbe8fcc9
F20110114_AACSYJ toro_e_Page_011.tif
83491e5e5178162a506f5cb1baf599e8
9f6067196ffe98ccdeccf1d17da051923029fdcf
1813 F20110114_AACTEE toro_e_Page_013.txt
4c746b80f0573f99a95b3810feb30b5e
afe66759474a2537118bcd341efa8d02fb7c781f
67210 F20110114_AACTDQ toro_e_Page_138.pro
910e1ade92db5561ed122eedf8a07eef
09260c746785220c38993ace7caaf6cb38ce5e1b
1051964 F20110114_AACSXV toro_e_Page_136.jp2
dcc7925b800659d046589dff289a1058
631e981005d4ca959b2eaea8f0d682f3bc75fbe0
20924 F20110114_AACSBC toro_e_Page_072.QC.jpg
617b0902804a9b7bd5bbc12b1acb7346
cf142a138e7c130dd856e9c59f48ad6879ff2c6c
F20110114_AACSAO toro_e_Page_141.tif
aa175d3e346caf47087c439ce010d3c6
1b1abb736755f77828d39185ec61be63f282ed42
F20110114_AACSYK toro_e_Page_013.tif
d287aba1a4619cfc39aeaf4eb8d407e7
3c5eacae1d06c072e3c8fe8b1dcceb5b6bd0c3a6
2063 F20110114_AACTEF toro_e_Page_015.txt
e9646d013b90bdaac4379a64006ec063
003446adbc00b28310d0e898734d275343c61e13
66381 F20110114_AACTDR toro_e_Page_141.pro
3a2b9eb5fd6ab298a512f522e48801e3
6548a906155a32d4583ace7cb74f7f053013b344
1051982 F20110114_AACSXW toro_e_Page_138.jp2
341ca7229aad250aa3ecfa32260a01dd
de47751aa8ef374a066cfd438fd272c259e2020a
F20110114_AACSBD toro_e_Page_069.tif
981b780a63e356a3fe191558b79e755d
713ccb78f53233a426038d28b6ae697a848dac2e
777385 F20110114_AACSAP toro_e_Page_100.jp2
f21a8cfb5a6c084bfa28b41e712b0579
37488d2725ca02d80cbc72af048cc0f92c80c326
F20110114_AACSYL toro_e_Page_014.tif
1e25991bc5b177bd0ba004567fef7a4b
5d93887f7aac32a3a5a0d3aaf9334cc78e88ee91
1984 F20110114_AACTEG toro_e_Page_016.txt
86a26e0d31c383110b7b4b29ec4d02af
93db12614404384de6d7b60bf2f3bf7be4db4e57
59352 F20110114_AACTDS toro_e_Page_142.pro
52c7db794f999c092397b90f819abd74
808f04fc484e40295871b00916e5a186342f602b
1051969 F20110114_AACSXX toro_e_Page_139.jp2
ddcfbc7212b9e55ad59d8c202c5ccc01
0b4cfce7374e79ffe1139e36b3f5b4b7c72c96ec
52398 F20110114_AACSBE toro_e_Page_136.pro
6051c5b44f25a147e20b584cc264d356
0fb7aaea1f5a4afc8c3f22c2b64197038fc46cce
652 F20110114_AACSAQ toro_e_Page_128.txt
ae28ae2f6dc5324d96fba2203e7ececc
a3a17bb28cceeb20603853c50aaf10ef32f9a944
F20110114_AACSZA toro_e_Page_041.tif
77c465308d796f84814ef16ffd5d5cc1
dd0c2b7d90b592b6f4667aa2e7f1fac4d1d76801
F20110114_AACSYM toro_e_Page_016.tif
d7d46d7811dffe8d36715a52a6c10e28
46d99a8f34e14062d833dada96278538ad50169b
1994 F20110114_AACTEH toro_e_Page_017.txt
48639b5cbacbcde9dfbec971d7a84866
ee8eb3f7fba81725e96cc842ecf5d043faeb48db
63643 F20110114_AACTDT toro_e_Page_143.pro
25d61157d991f166dafc21e7a552a1f9
ed5d1c345b7a59b3f9936dc02bce8c5967f682f7
1051984 F20110114_AACSXY toro_e_Page_140.jp2
ca4ac2a45e679b4c0a9ff6849405e4bc
0b4f23a2d02693f32f6b5781b9644fb0c2c46d65
F20110114_AACSBF toro_e_Page_125.tif
68c3b27795d4c4a957788c3d3ea6bc50
38f2fb90f4bb10a1d4febbf2d888305c5c4414e8
1641 F20110114_AACSAR toro_e_Page_004.txt
392680caaac681a80485716bcadb0ad1
8ff0343b860c851053acb794da4889ddfa0309c4
F20110114_AACSZB toro_e_Page_043.tif
cfffc8bd230a5a918010f9ada18ea540
25214c3d11ee2bd61e5b628ee93beadc45b829bb
F20110114_AACSYN toro_e_Page_017.tif
d5af9083d4007916b28c4aaa482fa7fe
8f9d43ea4da068688f534b8545e4d26e21cd6392
1876 F20110114_AACTEI toro_e_Page_018.txt
a8e29bc4ce843a61cc4e8ce5c5febfb8
1ae8def81fd5027a673f64cb206dcaa1a469a38e
14098 F20110114_AACTDU toro_e_Page_144.pro
737e486d593239b9ee2a204fd6f2145a
57af7db15cc3b9f0867b77b2e5806dc2223e080a
1051944 F20110114_AACSXZ toro_e_Page_141.jp2
69861fd05284d972082a8fba6bbb018c
57ea8fe5daa2d29df474aef691aef1f8c7387461
6503 F20110114_AACSBG toro_e_Page_059thm.jpg
6f822a72e17646391d2eb5114784e087
494908701dc80d81dca8993fa4e4bead05d54665
115174 F20110114_AACSAS toro_e_Page_026.jp2
3252ebf15c8cf10ad0bc3eec9a4409f2
1e385cf2440989d2ae90ab4cda1d9679d6636230
F20110114_AACSZC toro_e_Page_044.tif
978c4878d97b690b4beeae3bac34ca55
30c8f74dd0e2d4f8b71b7c66cf157a6a210a1901
F20110114_AACSYO toro_e_Page_019.tif
e7a9bc901c24f59e324281b3fe286c58
05540565e060c651dfc91e0aac43b5711a35d40f
2058 F20110114_AACTEJ toro_e_Page_020.txt
5e5e0cc2b8d04b30595bc36958b9dd44
4795be5104c1e2368a54d2ccf68936fcad4f0d26
41890 F20110114_AACTDV toro_e_Page_145.pro
48c8feff11be3bb89d78fdfe28e516bc
292fdf60e5ff08895b1e420241e295a14ee4c14a
109513 F20110114_AACSBH toro_e_Page_070.jp2
3bcc6cd53e087e416438a921a1ed8a0d
fa24c019ee5e811db86076d7c1aca42088b15e07
F20110114_AACSAT toro_e_Page_093.tif
6058668340eea7e740a568f426ecaab7
55b56b0ac17256e892ffff764c178e727329faf1
F20110114_AACSZD toro_e_Page_045.tif
f3f889d71b1732862003b957b2b7ee58
ed24c73b9efbef7cc5c0e52d1b3cb7c096f0c5f9
F20110114_AACSYP toro_e_Page_020.tif
ed2df22fe1cab5567aba7c24f1a7142c
cb6e2fbd502f0f553dde77524e65335a7aca66c6
1847 F20110114_AACTEK toro_e_Page_021.txt
716d4cf4563d3a2b5b7ce645662f4113
8d5405c2d087854dbe0539a3551c009f62bc7cd2
11115 F20110114_AACTDW toro_e_Page_146.pro
28b31f34bcf310c15644bee8b63cb8e4
30cdc585de735192a2c12da64c325ad83042e7a5
1051985 F20110114_AACSBI toro_e_Page_137.jp2
a2dfff4bd4e76574adafa1f47ffea06a
53feec82aebe4e2b7988aa4c3c5471016c0cd796
81735 F20110114_AACSAU toro_e_Page_031.jpg
113cb646a0237dc18fe8d1622c4ce163
b610a4a607e044a86ee248990af66aac35197622
F20110114_AACSZE toro_e_Page_047.tif
366218d31e5281675fe2afe3e6d7bf71
b7dc17494af3c81bf35924764531665414393846
F20110114_AACSYQ toro_e_Page_022.tif
38338baf541ef57a12aa216463214c05
a6416e9b75376c1d6b81d0f3b3d43d46c524a1ae
1616 F20110114_AACTEL toro_e_Page_027.txt
df4fbf2944920132ba7bb64702bba2ec
6502758fac554bd2430664ad44af02cdb9189d6c
524 F20110114_AACTDX toro_e_Page_001.txt
01d77858185516c52ba8a52384129574
8a03f791ca32a088000f10f55886fd813dd638ff
19823 F20110114_AACSBJ toro_e_Page_028.QC.jpg
8229bc149653f4838fc278eaddd4f0b1
f29d44371c09245d03c45c8a3d0ddb20e16d6565
6186 F20110114_AACSAV toro_e_Page_047thm.jpg
e9b77eae411a26820dbfedefe7de50c7
99403fbf47be283b76adc9a35aefb919553286b5
F20110114_AACSZF toro_e_Page_048.tif
f7eb24f232518b0cda6329fd42d716bc
d999688129b60ed576fdf5304b57fff8cb28fb56
1973 F20110114_AACTFA toro_e_Page_059.txt
20bf57afc2c495670e4210438e653a34
73707b9c33b5ff9d50ba70c5e299148768088d7e
2449 F20110114_AACTEM toro_e_Page_031.txt
3a12aa7e1676a11fae58dd9d5051f618
5e55e3e6d710643ecd1d80ac001e3b5753297d7f
126 F20110114_AACTDY toro_e_Page_002.txt
b9128cd0a73a0fd1c133c01ae9cc387e
5870da4803e4048ce7c6a7ea341141516fe2d762
72887 F20110114_AACSBK toro_e_Page_044.jpg
36de0cbd4662069156d9bc53cf628384
fd9797d9f41d2d73b034780184c30d55cd011de9
21663 F20110114_AACSAW toro_e_Page_018.QC.jpg
9a9902ed9e3d785317c71ad2ac9e639c
5c8279854fd8ab092564df30e9c61f7df791c044
F20110114_AACSZG toro_e_Page_049.tif
00fce7f608e7b0fdf088ec5380f5b1e7
7d77e4990923e6f2b7cab3e80c8becfa3eb3a604
F20110114_AACSYR toro_e_Page_023.tif
32f79029a0dc80c2e7766981d6c5426e
a728a6df1d97f7d9225f03e004eaee3abf9278b0
1966 F20110114_AACTFB toro_e_Page_061.txt
426a6544f7833cf9b234e549a6149924
56dcc6aa03b62c85857e85984e3e57b804f58d02
2022 F20110114_AACTEN toro_e_Page_032.txt
de2ced7c869b8ec7a6efe1177af55359
05d49be706231cee5c625d81a05c2e7216d495b6
4413 F20110114_AACTDZ toro_e_Page_006.txt
3752643524a14f1d5ae0b434edb77337
ce35554c3313dc663282d8193a231d9ae60c78f2
F20110114_AACSBL toro_e_Page_076.tif
04fba01d3582b5535c0bcc1660eca9be
fac79ef39b809f55d3304173706da0c8ae6ae814
F20110114_AACSAX toro_e_Page_021.tif
676c8adce002c480ef21549fe2d10c57
cd300030f3242d941297c47372dce4cbf5d045c4
F20110114_AACSZH toro_e_Page_050.tif
2180f0debc7fb37ff3ae7e2a920ea4bb
37079588e22edb2a59e4ff25a6ff521469ded1f2
F20110114_AACSYS toro_e_Page_024.tif
0dedc7d08a25b1edf247dc9880aab532
06a2845266f457283e11fa0b6cf83324350a3939
2081 F20110114_AACTFC toro_e_Page_063.txt
f768df087ea465e71b3ab1f09fa965c9
cb376b76cad3ddf7d3d1372e178551b000151322
1606 F20110114_AACTEO toro_e_Page_033.txt
b75bc15077c4f6458dc665519c9eba9e
094c26599e2890eb83b82b3808a426cb7a0d0e7a
71297 F20110114_AACSBM toro_e_Page_019.jpg
1998a5ccc9cf7c5e90a3566fbbddfdcd
31bfc3cac6cff7b3d9dd7cfce9c1c1f55a10fc93
F20110114_AACSAY toro_e_Page_084.tif
fe6653cd9e18d8abca56dea67f3a30b9
f8a8b8f868bf8d4256b965fba4a5bd4ae1bd7b88
F20110114_AACSZI toro_e_Page_051.tif
4cc674658e1dd3003f500ea5a6de1e95
f8e607dca019c72da357ba0385d6e0d3eabe74f5
F20110114_AACSYT toro_e_Page_025.tif
70093b853cbbd0aae78d70591cc6de41
98cfabdd9f1d619f1165bdb0588151a803bddbce
72596 F20110114_AACSCA toro_e_Page_106.jpg
f932be6aa9e29d778430cdb00a02284f
a8d262df867ee59e1b4780b42176f4ededdaa20d
2313 F20110114_AACTFD toro_e_Page_064.txt
9cc9654d7096d1cccc4f4ace3d2f9e6a
d9e179e4bd3a56aa962c4d0844e13e37f1a58039
F20110114_AACTEP toro_e_Page_035.txt
116061cbc50087cb5e0972b5da17c3a0
351fcabf441a3f6d46d7bd168dcba37b2714b801
54435 F20110114_AACSBN toro_e_Page_048.pro
fc7fd773fc269c76ea518495a91f94ff
9cb7af718c9f906c5a6513c701a1f3954996d7c1
F20110114_AACSZJ toro_e_Page_052.tif
92f18a78f7bc4b4e234a1be77e89e8e3
30128ba3b9688b0528dcf1e62150ea616e93340b
F20110114_AACSYU toro_e_Page_026.tif
f2cf7c3fc09668f965e9860aeceb9a16
b1f1fcea0635cfbb2081e90c06a3118cc5b94e55
36019 F20110114_AACSCB toro_e_Page_121.pro
cafcacfb8516063180a53bca9c09f733
6b28304c377b57a358d96ed7d4478b5dbe50712f
2025 F20110114_AACTFE toro_e_Page_069.txt
43b27a4c672b397cca1abdfbd74557ad
15f193fa56a205593e6cf13c108a0c1f9d163565
2023 F20110114_AACTEQ toro_e_Page_038.txt
044df448cdc932123dca8766c17f08b7
2a1f7691c326f61b281fae8bc3253d6edc5ea742
F20110114_AACSBO toro_e_Page_091.tif
792ca411b0ba21028a96deb1edc59ae2
4b00a06a7c0381b5995ae3700e0d4fd5ab06d8f7
6524 F20110114_AACSAZ toro_e_Page_109thm.jpg
9ee29f48572c18c917b64a0ca53477f2
c0b3b40afef9a1f5835de5552b15bd32cecc01e5
F20110114_AACSZK toro_e_Page_054.tif
bfc7d37e56dbf8144b0b781d88375314
5ade2bcd80ccf0d84fe1a8a43388a8c53261a0d2
F20110114_AACSYV toro_e_Page_033.tif
f6b7d5b70a23663f10c042d88bb4f800
fa541636e6518e568be419ee028a3bb718a7fa5b
26918 F20110114_AACSCC toro_e_Page_142.QC.jpg
4a6ddd9d5ad49c6c098d64be8718f5ee
1b36bee03881904bdc7f550585de293a84401cb8
2005 F20110114_AACTFF toro_e_Page_073.txt
34cec34445ef10a5dc3e7772f316b726
c172fd37c278821f92672f99356caaed6a17a1a6
2006 F20110114_AACTER toro_e_Page_039.txt
752f7dfd70e3304ff998e75dbfaaf13a
948462953433072ebea176f1c26b8535488a89be
F20110114_AACSBP toro_e_Page_004.tif
b23f93e11478fd3e334cde03e0adbc26
c6a2ca4281fe973584d6dd0cf053a6b93130d1a5
F20110114_AACSZL toro_e_Page_055.tif
3926769f81e8885df31a4063bcbb4411
2c7458144d88a7d666d54ae51fefe6f467ed5a5b
F20110114_AACSYW toro_e_Page_034.tif
368d584a6f500d7eea2d4fa89e01a98f
0763e06512e3076da0e68b605d371714b44c9a25
1843 F20110114_AACSCD toro_e_Page_067.txt
1e4f67e2df2680ee11b53bc0aa526180
3485b2fa217d2a08b026cc777462f8cd19a2b00a
1978 F20110114_AACTFG toro_e_Page_074.txt
05b32339c0bfbaebc9c34ba92861921b
6bb468680e59fda5bfe7cbfa6843e9cfa81c61d7
2210 F20110114_AACTES toro_e_Page_042.txt
f993c20baec1ffcf68e0c59745b2da84
8a6c075cd80464267b3261d1dd58a0803eb58fc5
49341 F20110114_AACSBQ toro_e_Page_051.pro
13c0e8d3f1940d6b8f0e662af30913e3
0df59e94f0beeeab7f3dbb6717d3206c08ab6610
F20110114_AACSZM toro_e_Page_057.tif
ea14d842b08c4c0ff12f958166b6d36e
29b5041e9f8481e11b0ffce48bfb222d19a8ae55
F20110114_AACSYX toro_e_Page_037.tif
e6efa89bc6eff6e8bc675dea70fb540c
7cef7c9dfec677a58a68b25c0875f583b8a2f176
F20110114_AACSCE toro_e_Page_075.tif
2fd16c94ccdf0e458ae07b747d546b46
2e1a4bf39c92b54deb25e05dd8933a7e84799ba5
1954 F20110114_AACTFH toro_e_Page_076.txt
f8adf7b1c751c2c477611594984a2568
e50f9b98ac1663c69d1ee264e56ca4be77e1fc18
1968 F20110114_AACTET toro_e_Page_043.txt
b31d2b356cd34650273f53ed9b10d31c
7543c52ca8cab26fe198475a148f291af6637035
111512 F20110114_AACSBR toro_e_Page_052.jp2
9d205f3f517f576f10afbc921661e798
df8db8c11ad3097aa3bc42b39cf3e19c6d9db049
F20110114_AACSZN toro_e_Page_059.tif
5cbaf3ceab160f77d542721d8c677290
ec9c09862e38a2b64194d1e040c7c496b49a9137
F20110114_AACSYY toro_e_Page_039.tif
88ef7cbb6cdc5064f59e368aa0c33da9
5d0d210bf23cc7bb206a1645852a02f53e9092c0
51407 F20110114_AACSCF toro_e_Page_060.pro
dfb8de0bfa1a39177bf1e812b1b3c91c
487403efa5f043f00b41d82841a0cb6154491d2b
F20110114_AACTFI toro_e_Page_077.txt
70d4994cc8301e8553a2b57500b5f72e
955711db3ed7c814109adaa9bd908376a75ed1fa
2037 F20110114_AACTEU toro_e_Page_044.txt
d651b5ff23a18d296b3414d01a0864ef
a36a204f3352d9893aa22354a5014f729aa249c6
6393 F20110114_AACSBS toro_e_Page_078thm.jpg
9b922483a74fa1157cc7f321b7aa4d0d
2053f1c4d23ed678d0cf1a47667f20cf2fc6f446
F20110114_AACSZO toro_e_Page_061.tif
1f9e66f1ae76a5039ab4b70e9a05b2c8
6de61b4468adb121b3cb48e68a3a5b951199803f
F20110114_AACSYZ toro_e_Page_040.tif
6ffa905cc3a74fdfacdb777f4bd1ec89
317531446bcd4b504fe93dea56571dcf38d8ad70
112035 F20110114_AACSCG toro_e_Page_039.jp2
54eeb2674d439ef6c8a6a131c10e97da
b9f087b24d50999236d56b3d809dfcbad1b1bda3
1912 F20110114_AACTFJ toro_e_Page_080.txt
fc0192c468d448d6ffb5259e99dbbc2e
6d98b46bb8f9dbf6ca67d4b720656d18ca97eccf
F20110114_AACTEV toro_e_Page_045.txt
18dc02f4c774b9ed509a70ea50c983ac
95e9fd4c8397c3a5f1a2823610666a5a23472c19
F20110114_AACSZP toro_e_Page_062.tif
ce0abab081011926850b40a730e85cc7
8dcb029a30f00c375f56c1eda46d587dc4b23a5d
34046 F20110114_AACSCH toro_e_Page_128.jp2
c2eb7b881914e7d5a1874a2288723dc5
d6be284bba5b0f8639b0102ee817198d82ee72da
1005569 F20110114_AACSBT toro_e_Page_104.jp2
b98ac4c48dfd22a54f394fe8ac8f3327
ba1cd682fc31293929e455e00d83b048c70af3fd
1963 F20110114_AACTFK toro_e_Page_081.txt
4ad085ee476fafca0082ad2ab76898fa
e1182f6496061b0d3ff3223f6318091ed3e13bb5
2211 F20110114_AACTEW toro_e_Page_048.txt
4036c58332b2b9d4b869d1212755e430
4e589bd877304a35b60d40da28475af6927f12c5
F20110114_AACSZQ toro_e_Page_064.tif
22e3fed5b9ee49094bdc582c3f92e703
35e567132ec485551250a8da8decf96a0f5ccce5
23796 F20110114_AACSCI toro_e_Page_017.QC.jpg
ed23278ac35c71b3e9f6a79485bcba64
9b6cb9ce58717f2d53a910ef7055d849a5836d34
1035 F20110114_AACSBU toro_e_Page_123.txt
51e9aee6fd819c9ada685f22a01d89fe
063f115f3c2a2cbe057f891de485beaea3e71289
878 F20110114_AACTFL toro_e_Page_082.txt
6815234281406ebea2b316c634622fc9
fbc8c3b32e970b8e7c846b08f7ac90ed3c51ea87
2065 F20110114_AACTEX toro_e_Page_052.txt
59d6bc281bce01983da7581a11f9773a
d8ac56543412d93d08b9c42fd3bb3ad7a16876af
F20110114_AACSZR toro_e_Page_065.tif
7a3580d970d1125e51960e6e5be1475d
ea49762bb50e6f8ed2ae3ec3887469e2a758bbfc
71903 F20110114_AACSCJ toro_e_Page_056.jpg
2e8959c0e5221056358bd0f87d8b4714
ba9cfdaf8939dba69b639392bb57104163e7d7c3
24177 F20110114_AACSBV toro_e_Page_066.QC.jpg
3c9aaac392fdba16e08302a57aaec56a
bbdeb151d369618a5033a742cf81cda981cea868
1673 F20110114_AACTGA toro_e_Page_105.txt
b3f17c980e3461cc1b09367a1d016bbe
73664628f4736f87e319f4e161f8355fbcd896ef
1747 F20110114_AACTFM toro_e_Page_083.txt
f2d5a205106abf18409af55256b59143
4ecfb8dd737454fe32a79ce56e38f36cd281fa0e
2021 F20110114_AACTEY toro_e_Page_056.txt
d1975211f93c30263540ce7cb24bfc5c
40f29d43f24cfb8a7829c4a878a3a3ad7e531961
60916 F20110114_AACSCK toro_e_Page_124.jp2
7fe9b2f20ddafc212f80e25e521b6e26
07c2312aa0a86edb35d58ae05fc40fbcc655a9cc
49202 F20110114_AACSBW toro_e_Page_061.pro
3d9aee866326f0895571118b98a33025
dec4cad91f3a6a7710e6f72b5acdb422805d87ef
1953 F20110114_AACTGB toro_e_Page_107.txt
3bfe68389d45ec5e8c07cfa5e21357d5
bfdb4dbfed01a6e191bc21dbe1db68fd25fe12ab
2377 F20110114_AACTFN toro_e_Page_085.txt
9cc0fb7f41b55d9e62ad12b79934aedf
0cda0b4d7027c117ff9045e2d5191304b0eafae3
1915 F20110114_AACTEZ toro_e_Page_058.txt
c6e0152f9b3dafc73bf2971c3f94c7e8
e2bcd0418b6d1b5de9e6c67e2feb2305eaacf5e8
F20110114_AACSZS toro_e_Page_068.tif
4be17aa1517dff5b2639ce5348a70e08
f586123ab95ba81e94cb54e5bdcf28243b7da914
1391 F20110114_AACSCL toro_e_Page_071.txt
f85d8a08425011dc2eb89f0d035386bc
e96be09ed58635129b0260b044bf5a1be0cddbb4
6420 F20110114_AACSBX toro_e_Page_041thm.jpg
eb4d8cd8fde9c7fc7c37bf54ab2be8d9
b81da6f2eb1b9f565ca9a8e23b0e7a7983d2b9c1
1890 F20110114_AACTGC toro_e_Page_108.txt
aabf89fc84cabfe8ad3fb1b54f6a8de3
8148a31cfa3e61665e038505fbefdbe357aa8502
1891 F20110114_AACTFO toro_e_Page_088.txt
56a6e832ed51de9800512ba3aa2dfdfa
754490b03d6244dd901f97d0e0e8a529ee4cdc19
F20110114_AACSZT toro_e_Page_071.tif
fb351bdc9295a676b4654c43b9c7da55
4fa83818854a415c21ea49a44a56e39aa0df1b45
23215 F20110114_AACSDA toro_e_Page_055.QC.jpg
a2b79c418ec59e3e3e892a6bf8093037
33b22cb7678a914b4b4871f8d0ddd177ae242c2c
8347 F20110114_AACSCM toro_e_Page_144.QC.jpg
aa4c9d754920435f0f7be681f8cdd257
cbccbe526b1aca7bfbb102255b6d276929dcf0e7
71456 F20110114_AACSBY toro_e_Page_113.jpg
19d24dcfff29901535099631fd39dbba
b2307ebe3383262ee0cdf75b9bd0cb05d017e84e
1921 F20110114_AACTGD toro_e_Page_111.txt
42da01835b5225b799a5e320df1b316f
fa791bf6f3ba65f06e54d1832f8c0a097e13d199
2318 F20110114_AACTFP toro_e_Page_089.txt
100b220eac22a6b398820786d69e5470
0cb913a78657fc37dcd0cb45bae509f31c68c9c1
F20110114_AACSZU toro_e_Page_078.tif
a8a3b415875efd779a6b95f0b560fa98
b63b86cbf95bafaff42283d6c2480b76de6eb614
1779 F20110114_AACSDB toro_e_Page_028.txt
0e31de427bdfb8991a7136f2bbb7487a
35346a87ca05ba092046bdcd0c210c373db0710c
2622 F20110114_AACSCN toro_e_Page_001thm.jpg
241c6b34af6f9be69b293be69f9bb7b7
73776af39911781721fb82ce2098299b707b1cca
1981 F20110114_AACSBZ toro_e_Page_041.txt
5976f76d85a1b19fceb3072a1ecf1c64
6cc087f20ef5871aec41b38fa3a4b483c71341de
1974 F20110114_AACTGE toro_e_Page_112.txt
87c221ce5892db593e9c0f79eac542f4
677bf845f3e254603aa7f42804db5affacf031d2
2114 F20110114_AACTFQ toro_e_Page_090.txt
8f271c2a5208fc5edcf689383b004122
735da6a1ed63f7df216b131b58fa8919081dd354
F20110114_AACSZV toro_e_Page_079.tif
da73958d7e8ec227e588a4334ff4a4ef
3da4dc5f45e2b29f9402d64b0d79c0b578c19592
7464 F20110114_AACSDC toro_e_Page_138thm.jpg
b564581c106c1f82da175c4b5f4e50ed
72fe91b300253e14b147222bf323e685543a4c65
24374 F20110114_AACSCO toro_e_Page_015.QC.jpg
0003c7216d936dcb55c9b6869d4a78b2
004f361e32bd84f428ad8e9b8c190acea5e4babf
F20110114_AACTGF toro_e_Page_114.txt
f298ece5b4abbf87379bbf99c5c307c4
d1e9aee5c027a4636fe575ea00fc4c57033abd20
2238 F20110114_AACTFR toro_e_Page_091.txt
76e8edecc1cf63302a6fc13e2e5776c4
7aa826de0e2c8724bea68ec3cf4006a39e7aeb83
F20110114_AACSZW toro_e_Page_080.tif
0682e0d6ce35f8d08c36e5513a9da700
d7770571e069cc97fb70b3ccfcee75f35354a1f1
77787 F20110114_AACSDD toro_e_Page_066.jpg
500b8003644ad62399f42bba35cf39b2
30d042814f48b344758ca0c5c8fac82355500442
47873 F20110114_AACSCP toro_e_Page_094.pro
3052999dfcf3f5441a26e3aab16e5635
f6693b7736a7a9539565e79c9bb2c4790b62fad5
1899 F20110114_AACTGG toro_e_Page_115.txt
7a9685a745487aa0ec33cdf03038698f
7c27c910143ea01e918b87d750d3314f8183ffe6
2563 F20110114_AACTFS toro_e_Page_093.txt
07996ce942ab12ed0b23b7f897644d96
22f5b262d436a21700389d9b382d3a766a0264d1
F20110114_AACSZX toro_e_Page_081.tif
628d7fbddb5ac78c559973eed39de327
10feb0c4a089902c9188dfd76c65414bb0b405d8
23210 F20110114_AACSDE toro_e_Page_061.QC.jpg
df447444a28ed30915470521e9efe1bf
de6322d0aff5fcd6fd5758171d1e89572f67749b
759010 F20110114_AACSCQ toro_e_Page_120.jp2
ed8bf29c6352cffe83db57ceb8ca9d76
410983ae264a2e3ac8a5dd50fd562dafa09ff9d4
1983 F20110114_AACTGH toro_e_Page_116.txt
cdbb1bf3027ae5ffda5480621b83528a
cbe1319d1409cd539813abf8224a3f3726b373b7
2141 F20110114_AACTFT toro_e_Page_094.txt
28baf2ad8d20d7ce26f897cc3d18da0c
d69cadd6435e537a2a64ebe576e1ad4d74ec860d
F20110114_AACSZY toro_e_Page_082.tif
86e3f5cc5cd3df1776f4e6fd67df0f42
79cc2f56d337515bf9d7144d02a40cb44bddb297
1964 F20110114_AACSDF toro_e_Page_113.txt
b4734d7b9c88964cb0b787922be074c3
b27a1054d0311a45ea19915b68da4e1e4f4d9358
42612 F20110114_AACSCR toro_e_Page_028.pro
3b154dc01250e711fed7273dd7794c41
13102a5533c1b0bf27863c268088ea64fe0a8d61
1607 F20110114_AACTGI toro_e_Page_118.txt
8e3c0f07380662d94994039b5368be04
9f90c731b163f7061840049a6f872db1f5b06cbb
2797 F20110114_AACTFU toro_e_Page_095.txt
202c39e51d0da9608e1b2e6419dbb528
2fc15f82fc06425dcbffc91f7ec87d16cd9382c4
F20110114_AACSZZ toro_e_Page_085.tif
f46a607065003f49af257f78508ac6ca
d5609756de48a619d52e42d4d095bd908862eb7d
22931 F20110114_AACSDG toro_e_Page_134.pro
7a06c19e9eee6780b3339242d3d21c3e
628bcd8c51e32251b8d70a6510464b899988b67a
91138 F20110114_AACSCS toro_e_Page_028.jp2
0f50fbc723eddb9db79e679f775baf25
e93476045a3d0a1e3a6377890f9e2a118b06f2e7
1414 F20110114_AACTGJ toro_e_Page_119.txt
9be13268939a4df6089824dbc65b28c7
a2ff88360b5b0acf6ffe4b87585e79de7d2416bd
2243 F20110114_AACTFV toro_e_Page_096.txt
964a653b29e892cf8c508e3b56bbbf30
6c1b7da43fb93303d014b5e4420028f315982929
54327 F20110114_AACSDH toro_e_Page_040.pro
98fda44c3aedae6de2248dcee7aae598
22f761ec95e8713182ea131d42c843dad21cfdbd
F20110114_AACSCT toro_e_Page_145.tif
7a490b03bdd256f776ff56582e900d77
92864e4e2468b0d9fe8fe2085e5752367e92b771
1649 F20110114_AACTGK toro_e_Page_121.txt
009a15de3fd19c3e640594c02dd34136
a4f6d8c1b00f636cc8b7ca5b0c63cd95f7c2a321
1851 F20110114_AACTFW toro_e_Page_098.txt
048ebc0fe2e191f58e9fc43ee8b8ae4d
17a645a9514806f1040e025978107747c6c15e6b
11667 F20110114_AACSDI toro_e_Page_133.QC.jpg
0be10fd4127bf32a97258cc642097549
ab00bcb4e01c785842240c4996ccc5996bcac641
70724 F20110114_AACSCU toro_e_Page_051.jpg
d7fef521e96fa09af09f01ca51d37adb
da7947382df90a3b55f8de4dc6dbfdb2b7393d9f
1443 F20110114_AACTGL toro_e_Page_124.txt
1d352a1b4a7849a35f50d17b296c11f9
bfa8953dc5cb1a1ef82fa6f0d51ea99d79d0b194
3392 F20110114_AACTFX toro_e_Page_100.txt
2164d9b316f3fb27723ea40011e08d7d
b0b20852256830725876238a76d8ef25dfe6ccc5
55412 F20110114_AACSDJ toro_e_Page_053.pro
4e3419e31886d59ec40048d8967098c7
ccde8b38f7c905194b2f11a72d6246d26dc717e0
5568 F20110114_AACSCV toro_e_Page_028thm.jpg
dfb30d29287bdfb10875d3001587e2ad
c2b954ae70494ba76830c03a2daf63e58a59f8a2
3876 F20110114_AACTHA toro_e_Page_009thm.jpg
e55d3e672837034fb177fdb3092754b3
afecd583127eaa0fa84f71745156ac96b761d9bb
1064 F20110114_AACTGM toro_e_Page_131.txt
218b793a52574718058669ec56d59e5e
6fb9d272b0cf488bfa2a753642c691e38bd81c5b
2020 F20110114_AACTFY toro_e_Page_101.txt
2879d447b12061b4bfa5d35bff8de9fa
c18893b45bc30b2816aef3b35643f44126fff918
2041 F20110114_AACSDK toro_e_Page_057.txt
1417768f47871f14c235684cf2af689e
6d97d4f5674cd10d3f6ce0a01d89b3be1318ac29
21827 F20110114_AACSCW toro_e_Page_008.QC.jpg
37d667c27f74d23728edb3dbf32b168c
2cd40001c4cc1c691d68831c755e7e8e9629f6c1
18962 F20110114_AACTHB toro_e_Page_010.QC.jpg
b90cc80d63fdd0d0ac539d188e778a2f
13ba930dc811a396d10fa9605de04f245a232d2a
1299 F20110114_AACTGN toro_e_Page_132.txt
8eab9246b7303622844070836cc47843
9c61ff16519ca857847fd0c38be66ad866481ae8
3045 F20110114_AACTFZ toro_e_Page_102.txt
f3ed19adff601493c18deead90647589
0a29c9efb5f0c01e1fe4a2657bd5e37e3a9c8fb9
1946 F20110114_AACSDL toro_e_Page_047.txt
3fb6935cc59c09b5fde540205ba52641
2b60b235d0bef7b26b5688a65ba0e7a22aaafed8
102206 F20110114_AACSCX toro_e_Page_143.jpg
e5bbfa416a600ea745ae5f49e25f2fcc
f079283f1e3f0bcc8e3507541ec951dd9b34fea0
5264 F20110114_AACTHC toro_e_Page_010thm.jpg
517e49b4633401163e38556dbd764aca
5e857f3b6933d88d512d184a71c6dba68380ca10
861 F20110114_AACTGO toro_e_Page_135.txt
f598da8ac31909b17e23460f8388c607
b8922b0ad349f3992fda2a7a7b72578f7cefa2cf
F20110114_AACSDM toro_e_Page_106thm.jpg
9b5d2ed2bfcdde06da2dff63f6ccea7e
befec2f785e841f26f8f4ac973f0f7e8913d0277
22024 F20110114_AACSCY toro_e_Page_067.QC.jpg
5ba8ff513b58e77b6b9b2025cdc63a21
037acd50b7b453c91c00ad2168c969bda6c78cfb
1047180 F20110114_AACSEA toro_e_Page_097.jp2
54aca3fcbe2db580b54fb59281d3c443
eafa3fa7e5586244da860354bcd04afc9b419674
22648 F20110114_AACTHD toro_e_Page_011.QC.jpg
208a21317602564386d43374a90592ce
d865505fc0f72b4c1946685b764a872153d816d9
2721 F20110114_AACTGP toro_e_Page_138.txt
fa956ecf6a9afe7eecb71a870211454e
361c21332bc17d943a3a647a1739d3bd5f5f7ad7
76797 F20110114_AACSDN toro_e_Page_097.jpg
60ee2d3cde45ef4ad0855499eb9aa138
dea587fdc80c4a3e51eb69b9067c95a4931185d7
7310 F20110114_AACSCZ toro_e_Page_139thm.jpg
7b0fd2e0a57e0807e4b710aaeac1cbf1
d9449c7cd0a60989989208db54bd2f556c05a364
F20110114_AACSEB toro_e_Page_143.tif
5a4bba8181987686c485b616fa862363
41d91aa43d8455e93a57556fb8df3b0b05d777e5
21688 F20110114_AACTHE toro_e_Page_013.QC.jpg
3af1813eaa4df34e138b7245726bb434
570422ba8a65c81bbbcecb9b90655d31b728be62
2691 F20110114_AACTGQ toro_e_Page_141.txt
a1df82d08f703c0c466ca40d53f3e981
5358ecee1d6ec80454d41f37efe6a55ff2e32b86
101244 F20110114_AACSDO toro_e_Page_137.jpg
2cb2bb6e5fde5d5112f31ddc9ad0fa6a
aa4ea63e262c9669d98db4157cb529484deda5cd
23285 F20110114_AACSEC toro_e_Page_091.QC.jpg
958865c1271b4c8b35697529d56df626
838b47c827cf7cc6c0de76920822ae57725a3d6c
6224 F20110114_AACTHF toro_e_Page_014thm.jpg
0aff3eac0d8c82659825839145f70bac
6d3f69864a0882612d21ba0c8243b600244ffae1
1695 F20110114_AACTGR toro_e_Page_145.txt
0d0c318d203de570523425d2556dfbc9
247fe931f349087358d0adadac28cde870925372
F20110114_AACSDP toro_e_Page_109.tif
eda6f02e73a56ebb3272bdcd6e901e09
4de49b1ca911897d5db599c5fd00a35ce6b946fe
6254 F20110114_AACSED toro_e_Page_093thm.jpg
e05b008606f73964bf1ed1279bc17c86
6c4c3118ae1e127805a4775223156dcee85c41ce
6746 F20110114_AACTHG toro_e_Page_015thm.jpg
a0d8e90fa53c444f4cc73787a9d1d7a7
2492fd19ad768e9e0b786150316277d4737622ab
481 F20110114_AACTGS toro_e_Page_146.txt
3a607dc52be517fde844d89a4396ea59
8f948c3dcd5e843958953344c0d8813a17057bed
72971 F20110114_AACSDQ toro_e_Page_034.jpg
89ee44f8f520d207000e37b3f471cbcd
ac7dbe56a0838bf81e462d7496369cb06ecaccd2
110356 F20110114_AACSEE toro_e_Page_041.jp2
d1c3f65e14746424961d154edc22938b
cdb9713e3e6d3862d183df6a721417ece79f4c1c
23772 F20110114_AACTHH toro_e_Page_016.QC.jpg
f7eec60081864f48d91df357564f72f1
7d75397c056e4bbbec338cf0fbcc8e0e86b777dc
6644 F20110114_AACTGT toro_e_Page_074thm.jpg
4c58af1d2e30e52e6b4dd515b97155dd
092c0f31dfd2dbc6d368c84757f09f3d278e7a3b
F20110114_AACSDR toro_e_Page_146.tif
b33bda69defc1f1ad5f6b1038a0f15b8
1e6915b040ec416f5f3e7044d60f425b0f21126c
43621 F20110114_AACSEF toro_e_Page_133.jp2
7f791f0b64c470bb48656b4e6ad5b9af
470eae17e285d3d0f9a40f46064847c99ca048a1
6579 F20110114_AACTHI toro_e_Page_016thm.jpg
f3462405ee803ee59f7402d1981693b0
95502a30ea49beb48fb6546c992c5675cbdf4880
6269 F20110114_AACTGU toro_e_Page_042thm.jpg
62b4e87c0429496bac825670e1ac57ed
d17d38e4143e09302d44dee3ca64e36a3d52ff99
22245 F20110114_AACRZA toro_e_Page_087.QC.jpg
cfc5a0d9d308f415b24d950b4062cd0d
caa54c10ed26250a649e0eb90daf5cc996bff36b
5943 F20110114_AACSDS toro_e_Page_095thm.jpg
075bde408af2d78149375e383393f2d1
d5b86e2124b3d8608e82a847d98cfb0474c17fe1
F20110114_AACSEG toro_e_Page_106.tif
b2913912293abf096ba9d31667f088c0
ae8635e796c85404923a6f7da8896e14c5732285
6559 F20110114_AACTHJ toro_e_Page_017thm.jpg
9fd94779fbdc50e2158f3e7d6facbd2a
c36fc721885dc29afa297d8e440bcd440399eb1b
216427 F20110114_AACTGV UFE0007521_00001.xml FULL
566cb57b57e1e5135a9eb5ae756e899d
2d23c63f7177cf88e856e59b341dfb64cf1da2e0
22764 F20110114_AACRZB toro_e_Page_026.QC.jpg
f7c53c9e42fc36f15446df25894cb08f
12d89126660a5d76acce9c8840457617924497b4
71551 F20110114_AACSDT toro_e_Page_107.jpg
8e546e81886ddf77af5f7a4da6fce6a5
73defd4cff68dd9f596c8d1ac6cf9a70d8dfa7d4
2452 F20110114_AACSEH toro_e_Page_140.txt
9f3482d31b776cd9763e0dee5a29b875
00aa3b35d17f5d1aca5229daa0a6fca38898c407
6495 F20110114_AACTHK toro_e_Page_019thm.jpg
ab0504e8c0b3498cea0fec2bc46a16e4
75d944c993e48eb24782fb88aaa4347426719f91
5491 F20110114_AACTGW toro_e_Page_004thm.jpg
bbbda4a9064235e706c7d2635a0d4c7d
a0d98c965195fa3058b5fd95bdc62091d021002d
48535 F20110114_AACRZC toro_e_Page_011.pro
9baef5fff5a4d51154e242c6f8c90278
5b2445e5e22abaad98664e57b1051fe2f353fda9
68907 F20110114_AACSDU toro_e_Page_115.jpg
cd6751d6e1a6cf1f1724bb80cea2899b
83c80b265d9367dd2a99fe860b65099807c1e6d3
2024 F20110114_AACSEI toro_e_Page_023.txt
9a7aca9088cfafcbe86800a388342121
866831c423e27a002c134051002d0b6b3d25b9a3
6160 F20110114_AACTHL toro_e_Page_021thm.jpg
626d018e072b1a0343d02cdb5f754451
f8a2f97d51c231cb0d143f7db98783d15230eb9e
4827 F20110114_AACTGX toro_e_Page_005thm.jpg
4fefb34fffc7e8d6e759d3cbc829073c
5880b0514b1d07d6866eb1964b9390673754dd6c
87202 F20110114_AACRZD toro_e_Page_004.jp2
3c4f6e3e1596d1f0ebd65d50fa4b79b1
7b7aa81c9db0ef667cff68cabe285c49836c3b84
1991 F20110114_AACSDV toro_e_Page_014.txt
cd48a72e53f2ebf080428c6548d501a9
18c9d07312bb7f9ff94c9afd8115045199012ba8
47755 F20110114_AACSEJ toro_e_Page_108.pro
43f70f0804023150073e410b2f87b4a0
df483dec619d8c5e55782185629de5a1af1c56cf
6600 F20110114_AACTIA toro_e_Page_034thm.jpg
65fa74cd562d7f36f2b74a48e3c7914a
4ce7a8e9fff025c9f66258770479f847bbfb9c2a
22873 F20110114_AACTHM toro_e_Page_022.QC.jpg
93a3d1a48bafa791be5fcbcdd9c1083f
d1336a2a688d08ab80235218461e8f43154c57e2
5329 F20110114_AACTGY toro_e_Page_006thm.jpg
faf517001b7887c277749d3962d06ee5
be7e0b8c3e44ead34e92e5214a5fba78fb8dc181
27768 F20110114_AACRZE toro_e_Page_001.jp2
e4256f5eab57e9538fc91132aa611a01
fb29b6446b343945f008ad2da1e63c1bfcada82c
2164 F20110114_AACSDW toro_e_Page_040.txt
000b9077fda381d66b602b6888c6b9a9
6642622b6815f0a6d46e32f352dc3f878360bcf5
6235 F20110114_AACSEK toro_e_Page_102thm.jpg
805189f290e9cf5a06d958b21ee326cf
77705f59a88f38e94684885c63cbafa80784ae8f
19438 F20110114_AACTIB toro_e_Page_035.QC.jpg
b3ebd5665f5fbe0c6638e48bfb0e80d0
4d3192922fbc9d39573294b08d738fcc8287acd5
6438 F20110114_AACTHN toro_e_Page_022thm.jpg
4e828c5360bbbb7e5e72f3acdab4b5a1
05d48de2d937e226b9ecfd3535d54c44fdbf854f
8382 F20110114_AACTGZ toro_e_Page_007.QC.jpg
f372037f30aaa03c5ea7c3aaf4aec3f8
58ad11efc7131ac7fdccd3e3267a8c16fb39d2b0
82285 F20110114_AACRZF toro_e_Page_118.jp2
5b158d431fc6914c8a1b7cdf4cd05dbe
d8add1a342a36cb3cb335ac3849b50ac6373035d
48896 F20110114_AACSDX toro_e_Page_019.pro
2e4ea2e11d5b33230f5f242fb8f7360e
430bc39d776dfa4d4313e5514463166e25686923
49121 F20110114_AACSEL toro_e_Page_074.pro
e38e8582c95289bb34a32812b5cfe364
0ef812eb4502bcf9f93149be7b369b0065d571da
5629 F20110114_AACTIC toro_e_Page_035thm.jpg
d35cb8ec2cda951977608e4117772ee1
c4cd0f35fbe2783e76dd0c7ae54587a01b00c7c2
23939 F20110114_AACTHO toro_e_Page_023.QC.jpg
8714efe7e0ae33e8d98147cfb7cfcbaa
df4755dbe8335a58a22e8e14fe97d6726b2bf550
617 F20110114_AACRZG toro_e_Page_144.txt
9012907337dd06185cb8689b3ea1f11d
b98ecb51595ef417038175f7519b63144e29ba6b
F20110114_AACSDY toro_e_Page_063.tif
7b226ec104595bdad9fce8a8f331ceb8
357129f6e0d173f4799f5e4ca92d09af4d2e7727
6677 F20110114_AACSFA toro_e_Page_020thm.jpg
37e7aa1515a2f4dfb0d7133e4472ddf2
4842307b4fc03b0dba84693cc3801c896192e411
2351 F20110114_AACSEM toro_e_Page_075.txt
1b7bb95aa6743651328ab5a90bd13a27
be0c55a55f58110cd827b3ac76a79ab4394141c2
6454 F20110114_AACTID toro_e_Page_036thm.jpg
065c494a3465472e4c2855eab7d80e69
b9f98b0db59f5784e9db2060931722e1b3255a3a
6544 F20110114_AACTHP toro_e_Page_023thm.jpg
3f2ed66853dd84cb62f3fd19b86b1133
09db19de1d2998891473c2b362e22382eadfd4d6
69252 F20110114_AACRZH toro_e_Page_110.jpg
0d4b22ea47027c62917af3ea9570cfb6
58b055bb609f0746678ae29079212e9d4ed7139a
F20110114_AACSDZ toro_e_Page_095.tif
54b4cea6c4954734ca1ac60c72879701
c563a9daef62b7f2d23ac126c092d2b32279eddb
1014 F20110114_AACSFB toro_e_Page_130.txt
0cf1afd1dec9724dba02358ddd8e92b8
710f8e4fd6a556dfdaf62818b10c9eb10fcbc919
11861 F20110114_AACSEN toro_e_Page_082.QC.jpg
4ffb2a8f08491fb3114d1f2de54f90cf
e2c74963c5eb77ab37baeeff78ad12dbb05b6a4f
23043 F20110114_AACTIE toro_e_Page_037.QC.jpg
4a3fbbf34c208d877538f7332ac2a74c
52d3eac36e8dcd7875e484f77534b97cab3e074b
22566 F20110114_AACTHQ toro_e_Page_024.QC.jpg
544ac2934075ecfe2ebb4ad518731a40
9fe0079d2059de362f8a30ba5c26aa1cfe4d3dc5
49970 F20110114_AACRZI toro_e_Page_073.pro
a7873e4eacde6af928748d892ef4dcc6
ce479947a5e02e8d8f7c2e47e3a78c78940bafcc
F20110114_AACSFC toro_e_Page_002thm.jpg
2845c7f4f18c99c23176d9722c02db2f
8d17e47dc0b48a004897c8d68311572785787e71
6161 F20110114_AACSEO toro_e_Page_092thm.jpg
a0c81583d1a34cb5fc9127dcb6f97f60
99f81f7ea3f4815e55e5e51052ace2114c09db6d
23807 F20110114_AACTIF toro_e_Page_040.QC.jpg
61f8210ce23a8b70c817e8c10588514b
c196b1deb4e7da5ded22cc02d2664a2c0ff28acd
22530 F20110114_AACTHR toro_e_Page_025.QC.jpg
80e14e594394c7fbdd35487091ad198c
35788f1a807bf6a618984e918094870eb7d2b7b9
23396 F20110114_AACRZJ toro_e_Page_112.QC.jpg
3c6ed0746830d891e8ee4c8a4c4fc354
a974a9f4f532a94be789aa5412fc29d496b7c5ba
42475 F20110114_AACSFD toro_e_Page_065.pro
1f762caebf80a1e6260ed8b5e43b1dc7
543d0a7b4acd47e87123dcd52174ba3baa698957
6491 F20110114_AACSEP toro_e_Page_070thm.jpg
62f1515633b9d4344987380a3ba588a7
8b8691399186409940a8fdd54684687563cf0380
22818 F20110114_AACTIG toro_e_Page_042.QC.jpg
fac4e9408491c1c83fdf6db4b69a8ed3
c33b150e1f73a0bbd9e9e809659f892075cc3dea
6222 F20110114_AACTHS toro_e_Page_025thm.jpg
5f0911fefd9798bb84147b4b323ec38b
32b029807d634efd666a65186dd7069ec56f8c41
F20110114_AACRZK toro_e_Page_053.tif
91d5fe9cbfa2dce64393e35f19d4189a
4359d5f3414f80fc456a1ede584b133752722d45
5138 F20110114_AACSFE toro_e_Page_027thm.jpg
211ba7590bba58fec773e6424556ffec
3277995cb08c314dbf9b7519b9ee27968efe5ed4
21924 F20110114_AACSEQ toro_e_Page_021.QC.jpg
813446e50f03dfc03300f6e2ee5e49a4
b5502c03c41032724dc0a63fa2a3d45e5841b711
22826 F20110114_AACTIH toro_e_Page_043.QC.jpg
8047abe0e5f61af1efaa73702b56493b
6643fe10001a1804b6154a9a3cad16c7b54ae62c
21652 F20110114_AACTHT toro_e_Page_029.QC.jpg
e82d6895f56515fcb6c95d15dfab2484
4bc829e2ed0692de5d68ff1594ffbb3ab31a90a9
70871 F20110114_AACRZL toro_e_Page_112.jpg
9e7ee3fb5ecc1c78cd82ebc606d26fb7
d47f0a2533aeb3491cd6215a90a948fd8d1d8426
19522 F20110114_AACSFF toro_e_Page_121.QC.jpg
b63b867a221a29872d6e56b65032cb23
d1147623d8e759ca06a8ea3f0c970b6dad6ff6d1
1051970 F20110114_AACSER toro_e_Page_009.jp2
ec25cd4351601003ab286f9e71325c02
9a0c0417e6e078f3e9e966dc4d4aac0aa43be658
6628 F20110114_AACTII toro_e_Page_044thm.jpg
72a826e594a2dec46acfafb0a10b6e1c
fc85c2ea928e5f3ac45465a6032f0eef4b5759a6
6212 F20110114_AACTHU toro_e_Page_029thm.jpg
d1df88a18426a4a8713d1a899369c6a9
b7c0041c9e933a5ed510de6c7db532c8c54f4f50
47155 F20110114_AACRZM toro_e_Page_018.pro
e7fbf0e1f685838dc3e33fef536ea11c
9141ab11c9668146cdcad1b4bc2d957cb2c9f86c
38390 F20110114_AACSFG toro_e_Page_088.pro
f0f1ba7e7c63320d8378cdf37b31109d
45a1f96be9608040ebdc22fbbb79675ee4e041b2
6653 F20110114_AACSES toro_e_Page_069thm.jpg
2971d7952db68b4b9c1efe9e6b9424cb
f747c78a2885dcb61b721d1bfe2d040792e1ac3e
23232 F20110114_AACTIJ toro_e_Page_045.QC.jpg
306003ba60797917a23f9291e832c7bb
94b9b169e50321893247d7b3842151ac712689dc
24824 F20110114_AACTHV toro_e_Page_030.QC.jpg
f99137bcf786ec1f6f2edc2d01172f35
238d4b6c27ece8a03802c58e5575a78cbfc5b31a
21010 F20110114_AACRZN toro_e_Page_102.QC.jpg
68b33bba20aa7509013c65a263fad2d7
517785058fe5a9aa684a71d97ffead96788b1a7d
51219 F20110114_AACSFH toro_e_Page_052.pro
a2d730950012dca4d4a25eed87126fa6
8d158e545d1822339fa80a9b9b622eeff5ad5e48
F20110114_AACSET toro_e_Page_012.tif
82355d38787c5c4a1f572ce273c9bbca
d0b003805e3375ce4228e998dd8dec4375727777
6542 F20110114_AACTIK toro_e_Page_045thm.jpg
a54fd3f8aff635360f9f430169134f90
cfc67954917739b79595d2b0d24e5b83afe6d5a8
6818 F20110114_AACTHW toro_e_Page_031thm.jpg
5b31b8e927576b0f98a87c6c8ffd5c3f
adaf472ba7a9fa49eda1dd9116224163d08d35b3
6401 F20110114_AACRZO toro_e_Page_064thm.jpg
94f997d988f1565f693ac9a4a3af5c8a
a8aa818d09a3a52cce88576dcd7eb996d41041ba
51406 F20110114_AACSFI toro_e_Page_038.pro
a1683ecd786d1dbe7b5112ae808bc4fe
75a481083f8cd6cbd6c1b6108132f8590c82276c
110351 F20110114_AACSEU toro_e_Page_056.jp2
bf84426ccd6ce8baba930862f513de52
ca2746744a838642f4aa5f2c802d8e0078eca0eb
6482 F20110114_AACTJA toro_e_Page_060thm.jpg
80c7d791a8566ac3c4b81b36ca6544c3
6e0996bbf7490a61b388849342f88f4c1d8844b9
23038 F20110114_AACTIL toro_e_Page_046.QC.jpg
34efbdb2130553f8c24173e0571aca40
ba418b8302e7e4f3a266f07ae7fee5bce0cece24
23917 F20110114_AACTHX toro_e_Page_032.QC.jpg
eda837ba2fa4624a5fd064cbeb7eddf9
81c6a760534bcf59da0216107daa8e36e337f4f4
23048 F20110114_AACRZP toro_e_Page_113.QC.jpg
81b5cab8912409057d2ba33122abcd6a
9bdcfc7cc6a41bdd21042147e95187a1dcd9bd02
18445 F20110114_AACSFJ toro_e_Page_027.QC.jpg
d669a8f6484807abbe71abe60783ef99
df1b005929124ccc5be8fef1a3f8e1bfa0791f3d
2032 F20110114_AACSEV toro_e_Page_055.txt
1029606a4873564b65bdab4d92139504
dbe1007d8ff764eefba9bb0fb4f3946b4d9b0ac1
6376 F20110114_AACTIM toro_e_Page_046thm.jpg
996b401b94c49cc6b0e191eaf8716e58
399eea0e1fa1088e86275ad54b9b3078dc31f132
18417 F20110114_AACTHY toro_e_Page_033.QC.jpg
a864f79cb540308f20e80ed1b4fd03ed
c2abeb86bba343b742b83678d0221749c9c138e5
F20110114_AACRZQ toro_e_Page_028.tif
ad714b07979dc388661f09f51748f270
dc26c139be7086945e50c38988b8f6ad5329ac07
9696 F20110114_AACSFK toro_e_Page_127.pro
938d3825da47f7b58251a0bb0931ec3f
d8ec623381aa9861a8113b6d6abb60591acb7baf
F20110114_AACSEW toro_e_Page_056.tif
c4750bd28991eeb604dda95da158678d
2a9e86274736291cdbfe0de2782383b7a512fa6d
6324 F20110114_AACTJB toro_e_Page_061thm.jpg
d14aeaea634ca40d978bc20447b923ce
ad4ab056c2c43f815b15dea8d9848328df67f927
22119 F20110114_AACTIN toro_e_Page_047.QC.jpg
6ee2cf013b9e500bb78b261944df5514
baa3dd3b5b5e16b0518326c4325f5bc7f2679af8
5340 F20110114_AACTHZ toro_e_Page_033thm.jpg
bd7d2cba06a10f2ee3d5cad127364d3c
7b9be8931ec163ef27315357c9e26e76559ebdd8
1872 F20110114_AACRZR toro_e_Page_078.txt
dae12efcb9385ff54d3b5b9a96a26456
d7a357196e35dacece3c766793297f7c3b554e2d
18734 F20110114_AACSFL toro_e_Page_133.pro
05847f44501f224294ebc575d25c591b
d1f8494eed8e512b4227b9377fe97c04b1619692
6540 F20110114_AACSEX toro_e_Page_066thm.jpg
d23b5e1cdc68c29ea1186c200b20dd4a
f81fe4518487c9407105894c97b28cd393fe83f7
23283 F20110114_AACTJC toro_e_Page_063.QC.jpg
894ca4bc1d282d881b685a012aace8b9
b4b33b6a0adbcc399e9ddca97e43f6b7a0c56361
6417 F20110114_AACTIO toro_e_Page_048thm.jpg
63aa37e4b849d9e0e2bb27f45956e3c0
4aa1783170f15f5b713e67f5a4c20734b0c604f1
23750 F20110114_AACRZS toro_e_Page_034.QC.jpg
3e0be48f69a311772a9dbcad54053c01
edcc322d87403e74bf1aae2120c4b2c886976113
F20110114_AACSGA toro_e_Page_035.tif
4fd58ea3eab4c68069bbac3c33525eb0
ce6ff1fe446241719e0c99f4fe3e23a728f6ada9
1016 F20110114_AACSFM toro_e_Page_133.txt
c24d3d74196f4b336ed752c84691af4d
ec09d64fd709e94e366abe8c1218d5a8f19c392c
47396 F20110114_AACSEY toro_e_Page_078.pro
e184db65a9ee6a149bb78d8953011ff4
4e6194fa051b5e8f49ff05e9b8274c5ece70304c
6383 F20110114_AACTJD toro_e_Page_063thm.jpg
a7aaa4438727bd3ea416e17f209302c2
6d87aad2f2832caf24cfd6cb4428df920114dde7
23617 F20110114_AACTIP toro_e_Page_049.QC.jpg
59af3bb7f49a4172c5d31452a052a62f
f84caa4f55df6ed343b796b0fe1e9a948a4ce502
47970 F20110114_AACSGB toro_e_Page_022.pro
938ffd87f0f5a67b7c5c0becf466c757
42ae9e658266229fa9c6c7aaaf3b79ee65d3aae3
20920 F20110114_AACSFN toro_e_Page_089.QC.jpg
c177359ef779c910ea3e7bc7d859103d
38e166bd2fee24a5180cb237eb4ea450b5ab5128
103228 F20110114_AACSEZ toro_e_Page_077.jp2
93fc83b07544a48ed5faca38a19dda59
9917947e54786c708ebc6ca1fc006520351840de
20567 F20110114_AACTJE toro_e_Page_065.QC.jpg
441399c723bcaba0e24035f9d7e10c59
eff98da1aedf407107372eaa6f0f34e8d7ea3724
23556 F20110114_AACTIQ toro_e_Page_050.QC.jpg
d15b56cdbefe016c28e7b7f702626c1a
9488b34f1a5372af8edad0fdedbb0441b8aa1aaf
41039 F20110114_AACSGC toro_e_Page_131.jp2
2e5833a29f629472c8aaf39fc930548d
00b32baf765bf359701e2d3b551342b996dfe1ee
106928 F20110114_AACSFO toro_e_Page_116.jp2
ee19f4ff0f3a81ed700de6abaf7dc90c
15644638e56f5b430bb7aa9483cf8408e0a5bff7
109268 F20110114_AACRZT toro_e_Page_113.jp2
ca49d2d9eba3d287d03e5180a49eb612
382f00419af7dab02d2b448a205178d5d03c0010
5884 F20110114_AACTJF toro_e_Page_065thm.jpg
a7de16439265b7640cc7023e3b1a456e
32cfacffe42265f1f4a90d24fd25cfb5764e4026
23458 F20110114_AACTIR toro_e_Page_051.QC.jpg
a44a93862c82e74940bfac5fb5392b79
f9fc75d2868d3d586b0973b1fc9ab9b550c986da
1993 F20110114_AACSGD toro_e_Page_068.txt
79effabbdfe074b9ef441e571201978d
7136810c609e6e759fce0181a6be86209831acd2
21800 F20110114_AACSFP toro_e_Page_006.QC.jpg
5157d908750d76a1b5104294ab244e91
ed28e262ab02491e72c20f2f8553aa543a24ba2b
3373 F20110114_AACRZU toro_e_Page_002.QC.jpg
2ca1a28a1d2baa03e5e97f44d1604b5a
5e9cfe0cd59638a4d68458d593eb4e95bef8ff48
6237 F20110114_AACTJG toro_e_Page_067thm.jpg
25c366bbe4a653099bedf85e00f14688
d00ff6aff406e68c9e9fc4f06ef9b5d8d8200e82
6147 F20110114_AACTIS toro_e_Page_052thm.jpg
9a8e5b01a763953fe9036c13156a17f6
40189584c5d5baec6da1599bdcac81aa1b06a6d4
25777 F20110114_AACSGE toro_e_Page_090.QC.jpg
98c5f36af2e564d0bb177a0f5b6f22d4
520f9703e440335a6640b6480a70f4ba7ff674f3
24332 F20110114_AACSFQ toro_e_Page_122.pro
52ac93f211f87714788cc01aebb6b4f5
193eafbdae38e40449eaeeab22b976a17518cd93
F20110114_AACRZV toro_e_Page_090.tif
965ed90f6b52abcbeb8fdea9cb7ed6a5
5a7b793adccb378f6986d26553761a229916f6cf
F20110114_AACTJH toro_e_Page_068.QC.jpg
c5aa33205cf081d6a654c3bdf6571ee8
e4606282430d497f9c2f4239f68608d5b26dca4e
6625 F20110114_AACTIT toro_e_Page_053thm.jpg
e452704e9492dcd8b0cce50627556036
3a3df017eff11f847d67c0cd3d086d9ebed2c3b0
100846 F20110114_AACSGF toro_e_Page_098.jp2
c9386d22a1f764c30601751dfd6b3e28
6051aa2aa76c26f455ce9d4e8eb8351812edbc24
3393 F20110114_AACSFR toro_e_Page_005.txt
9878400acb589e4ae76fa3c4d6dfe7ca
ab82ad2b8533916bd82a75ce7ad93760ff85207c
77995 F20110114_AACRZW toro_e_Page_030.jpg
fd777f0f045df71940f45d2aaae1af6c
4003f85d1fc15f107aa7b0a018d45d80cb59deb5
23216 F20110114_AACTJI toro_e_Page_070.QC.jpg
b51d6cca25dcca0c2581d327e3d33cd7
9b244e81ba5f1e2e7882d2e796d7567cd58f0335
23301 F20110114_AACTIU toro_e_Page_054.QC.jpg
b7ce23cb8afea8cb2bf79a211245d5a7
add0ed1fadf169605eca7aed87882e10200a13a2
F20110114_AACSGG toro_e_Page_018.tif
81f14623e3eb1c90e18a64a8147deb72
b058c486fdcbb18df3c5420ced923986830d5008
2225 F20110114_AACSFS toro_e_Page_066.txt
13ce3caa7476c647a1d746cfbb561450
c142d21e79a169c70c5a79eeea24abd9f0597b1d
49732 F20110114_AACRZX toro_e_Page_109.pro
da5aae28f7bc22fa873071cb2888bde9
3d7ef0b47721b745d4af67b7a3a764ed4fef6344
16617 F20110114_AACTJJ toro_e_Page_071.QC.jpg
6239a5ecd84eddc642addaf4e78ca2e7
eba15be529c92179418f5fc97d30b35339521993
23237 F20110114_AACTIV toro_e_Page_056.QC.jpg
3707581804624321a4c963879ffc535a
c9795d6346a832f2fd8d45117943a4b201dabed1
1935 F20110114_AACSGH toro_e_Page_022.txt
66c3b419938fe05bce540973b2fca7bf
aa51c986f2d8eabc838fe440ad077f90346a9c61
F20110114_AACSFT toro_e_Page_008.tif
82bda3d7935572753b91fda3e49747a8
475cda84ecbf928071face378c16991d7b7cce8e
37858 F20110114_AACRZY toro_e_Page_131.jpg
842aeec2be708402921735e66d37429a
784bcd9e567c6bd52fe3e2d08fca8afd0241a8ea
4816 F20110114_AACTJK toro_e_Page_071thm.jpg
e35259b5e8c517a748a06d665222a7a0
b5772e812b5577a153964f22d932b8e8e94a38ba
23943 F20110114_AACTIW toro_e_Page_057.QC.jpg
225b5f450494d78a517badf0166c28b6
bec41e57673e9532c81c109099f7ab980cb0147b
55103 F20110114_AACSGI toro_e_Page_066.pro
7466b49d5a82b625dbf69ecc7a8d5317
fa55c6146b02131aeafb3a8df895a0be2ca9d772
2236 F20110114_AACSFU toro_e_Page_053.txt
ce62f82e723d015fef468a6f0340f7e2
ea3c4f57b266c68e91b392abdad2e82c9175f196
50307 F20110114_AACRZZ toro_e_Page_016.pro
b60ef7d475d5aa0cbb077e780778517e
c880bfc726ebb32876ddfa3110689a1320fd0a35
6355 F20110114_AACTKA toro_e_Page_085thm.jpg
3494c638235ec89d9a4d3f0c3e504bcf
8cbfd37b33148bdb892fcfc0b96f918d0090b6fe
6013 F20110114_AACTJL toro_e_Page_072thm.jpg
2e72e77544fba88cdff7f895c0e79cd5
88033ca8ba2ae25c4a0c6ab5b3f284d5d6ee3d72
22414 F20110114_AACTIX toro_e_Page_058.QC.jpg
65e73e68a62bb1b6285d18f0a32c429e
09a5d54ae22dc46ca60f449b855d3d2ab6c5ce5a
6219 F20110114_AACSGJ toro_e_Page_018thm.jpg
42c9ed7b42c3ff5ced9ad026659aee20
7c2df4f350295587e27876e62b41103c6bb32ba5
40255 F20110114_AACSFV toro_e_Page_004.pro
1805c17d16ba0cd374195d51304be138
98b2d5a0282b595a1dd7c8b3115330a52a6e5281
19634 F20110114_AACTKB toro_e_Page_086.QC.jpg
8cc05875792839c6fbf42b6acc63e93d
cb1f77bf0675626dede2d9700558946346dda6d3
22946 F20110114_AACTJM toro_e_Page_073.QC.jpg
879579eb6c78a1fc9d4faef44627f47b
d1d91d4fad73b6a37ff302a9d719158380c07fca
6441 F20110114_AACTIY toro_e_Page_058thm.jpg
1e5920ed7757af3f5f8ad380216ddda2
dcb2a88a52dd42af639df3f70dd58b7bb0c7a6f3
70152 F20110114_AACSGK toro_e_Page_011.jpg
7cb245c91af3e10d08e29d5dc91d3f90
8b22c72597a4eccc6e9207760d93896788633046
73262 F20110114_AACSFW toro_e_Page_060.jpg
3775929e49f378edeb904445448373b0
88f8f4569ff6a30ea4e4d008924df2f344719bcd
5665 F20110114_AACTJN toro_e_Page_075thm.jpg
a1ff050134188e5fe828357fa84e2c6d
fbdb2bf486315fb3e616cbfe59d9804b55c6c015
23220 F20110114_AACTIZ toro_e_Page_059.QC.jpg
05677c7b7ef0f097c3ffad57157633a8
33841a9b89371b48d11f5409ebcd63736fa000c7
2361 F20110114_AACSGL toro_e_Page_062.txt
522b42cb85e4c8dea17c6cd0860d3d26
30f556cf13a234eb334c1e2380485e7882bfbf27
6671 F20110114_AACSFX toro_e_Page_055thm.jpg
800a15b34215e7ae3733c900944309a4
a275543bb89a7031f4314a71cd4f483b20def138
20315 F20110114_AACTKC toro_e_Page_088.QC.jpg
27b8cb7424df484302ed6cd66ad0c79c
a2bf89476b98d28ddea2fc8525ac51681097b5dc
22880 F20110114_AACTJO toro_e_Page_076.QC.jpg
7e4e321cccc4bf545a0b518920bff177
4895c77d8c62828cbce90291b69a7c450c3a344e
6458 F20110114_AACSGM toro_e_Page_024thm.jpg
e4190552ba3a61f3156d0a1b81d89447
3fa595f5d8c0656e1c6815cf403593f2c4c10f8f
23674 F20110114_AACSFY toro_e_Page_069.QC.jpg
2f3cb234641cd2d118fb6f5ebbdab6a5
ce3a59001fdaa8ef0bb57916a3e12d855aa09909
38922 F20110114_AACSHA toro_e_Page_123.jpg
00964508997c3d3b2adf7ddd85f69b34
9df5b4cdd4cd9d4dcbdd2f611401cf1eee77d032
5651 F20110114_AACTKD toro_e_Page_088thm.jpg
f961c388de53d861bdf2a96d04eb4cfd
9272e0f39f406dc425cf241e4dc89e18a3c6d7f0
6565 F20110114_AACTJP toro_e_Page_076thm.jpg
19b82824c0b35f1fc1e04dbfea517929
4e25e7839048f623f7040436c206b422d6514353
25760 F20110114_AACSGN toro_e_Page_119.pro
cddd33c10c7c52df5cd0c7dffddb5298
f3e8103028fb8a344f21792def2d4eaaba956e84
59941 F20110114_AACSFZ toro_e_Page_139.pro
4ce8c3b3ec703564cef3d034d62c0e2d
1eda361fbed5c7f5abf10bff5219fca18067be42
F20110114_AACSHB toro_e_Page_101.tif
a09a283361ca70477489fdf83b6006f6
8853f4be0d2e5c60ff9dcb347bb8a74c0ffa01c6
6257 F20110114_AACTKE toro_e_Page_089thm.jpg
8f2bbf4b6b32aa1f692accbabcf84f47
a8ba79c7f009ac1be0c7e88b8499d45444f88eef
6229 F20110114_AACTJQ toro_e_Page_077thm.jpg
6209f0ab418ae135458ecc38d25dc704
1e9ea2c0780bb7357de44dbbb83f9df73c0c5e86
50343 F20110114_AACSGO toro_e_Page_017.pro
05bb3955e6904f952c81b40b342f5af4
5cacce5cf63d8260433d668be59583a2b1151f52
1436 F20110114_AACSHC toro_e_Page_003thm.jpg
c30db9ed36c9a6e5b4129b5a491ac577
37c3b41c6475c56368e605f6e6781e3c91731caa
6951 F20110114_AACTKF toro_e_Page_090thm.jpg
03b0f45aa99c8535cf7f2e2280aa366a
5198641d5e6429eac3f7f9812278d83f738c7d14
21721 F20110114_AACTJR toro_e_Page_078.QC.jpg
c644968d3e77df69a98e6b401a9acba4
4272405821a4d84cc1825807758c0ff06744672f
115235 F20110114_AACSGP toro_e_Page_042.jp2
178f63bfe1999b0f1a8bdf401ac62056
9b6015cb05c367fc0211572afe3e3aa41162fbf2
24100 F20110114_AACSHD toro_e_Page_044.QC.jpg
14d4327639c9e0e5709a9f151ceebf15
dc228392fbfd457aabfa3b4f67b8afebc311c018
6707 F20110114_AACTKG toro_e_Page_091thm.jpg
4519445a0990dc5b30f07de29cbd0c31
1d017e0734366cc32e58bea92b2e7a6352c09f4f
23358 F20110114_AACTJS toro_e_Page_079.QC.jpg
346aa023c9e730a7531bf0fc7d562e44
106ac81ca20b3430acc59003a7b34272048fe889
1051975 F20110114_AACSHE toro_e_Page_142.jp2
d5b063af78636ba1508a99832f512ef9
3ee7fd3b4ff84716ec0078bb28ec7eb763cd450f
1949 F20110114_AACSGQ toro_e_Page_003.pro
13cd3f1189264fb0613b45e382a7d0cd
5987ec8f9260cdb0bbbb35838dbefae5aa1d7d27
20251 F20110114_AACTKH toro_e_Page_092.QC.jpg
120344ae451eddf1d7022b1b2773eb65
16d1a43d40d06c8172a4e693c31fed40d6a63da2
F20110114_AACTJT toro_e_Page_079thm.jpg
02293e6d91b8debb46751db470566a42
6d1083bfae9a4f1f5d9243c0d4106e81cf7bbd18
51392 F20110114_AACSHF toro_e_Page_023.pro
cf503170e63dac31b3c932a83acbdd11
f2675a39f791c17a39d2497b812501e4f9e74d5b
109462 F20110114_AACSGR toro_e_Page_017.jp2
e208b9fe1952970cbce06a5a8c92451e
f5c478d0f6913283afeb8bcb34aa3a89b8c883c4
6553 F20110114_AACTKI toro_e_Page_094thm.jpg
94b94c40213733d96c6bd48f134d9dfe
741ebfb564bab6a54fe02049c2c54ba417d25d95
6187 F20110114_AACTJU toro_e_Page_080thm.jpg
8b1e2b6c543ebe75c7ff4356b8bd2b38
d6bdaab0e03cd9cc2e57341591cabc6f13af381f
F20110114_AACSHG toro_e_Page_077.tif
fe362b61cf7e4833edb27787f5d28513
bff170d1dceb726ec904d4060c2c83d974863c07
112498 F20110114_AACSGS toro_e_Page_054.jp2
15d3bbfe61cec4bc50772f945d4f2c3e
12844b7649abfda66ebfbdd9b4aa1a2e352661af
22699 F20110114_AACTKJ toro_e_Page_096.QC.jpg
3e3570b866e329e461f7a8fa306ecdaf
b10cf0abe96b6ef0985fb6e1f32603d3cc87bef6
3603 F20110114_AACTJV toro_e_Page_082thm.jpg
d5f29d6b85fb210f137e45c832c188d5
efd05bd926b7d53be6f1b1a88fbd05427bd04811
23558 F20110114_AACSHH toro_e_Page_136.QC.jpg
bcbc6ed38d9546644b88c87d82f79b01
3799b6a9c95670ac069b2343eb6ce863316556fb
50529 F20110114_AACSGT toro_e_Page_090.pro
2851191b5508c07194db41e50cbf4ef9
b875e1c143bcafcdd669ec1cbf5086b913a8574e
23486 F20110114_AACTKK toro_e_Page_097.QC.jpg
c829f7752bd8eb10bd69af4e4f989fa1
63381b45a99348111edede4ba41057e7fcfb756e
19011 F20110114_AACTJW toro_e_Page_083.QC.jpg
6810a43001a07206d790322f904f1f3e
4a3eb9b37b88a56956ef797c5d5c192066c218eb
75928 F20110114_AACSHI toro_e_Page_091.jpg
88054f5ce6b378be8ae160312aee2c96
f5e02e3eef4246e18fa741aa45dc1944f9d6181a
38766 F20110114_AACSGU toro_e_Page_027.pro
2dd485368e506d40375706dcff638585
3ced7d49e7781081614b1dbdc41b3f2668ea1adf
6265 F20110114_AACTLA toro_e_Page_111thm.jpg
b83370f0acfe2d27f35f7c055d030f83
282c59a5670bbe0171d65b9be683cc8cd5167f8f
16891 F20110114_AACTKL toro_e_Page_100.QC.jpg
f78af1f739a6cfb8dd2f2b2e4f8e0660
37a66c9b2730df7fb8e58fff8e8d9804d142161e
5390 F20110114_AACTJX toro_e_Page_083thm.jpg
a52fc33f17d49ab13c7dd28a8819ec67
0cf5361b7b728476d3bbea26a1c76e578fd85496
F20110114_AACSHJ toro_e_Page_046.txt
68c88fa839c8b35b23a0140265156866
79486cf5efb19a30ff2c139c5f0fde295cae1f09
22978 F20110114_AACSGV toro_e_Page_014.QC.jpg
6f4506e63fe88bbc353e208a1e78ed64
1a5fc6acc933d5753516a6d9e343edf5fbe45ce2
6571 F20110114_AACTLB toro_e_Page_112thm.jpg
2ce71dac4a57e983eb6b7e2087fbc4e1
68db31594c6834d55f80cee5f618072c0e289bb8
5045 F20110114_AACTKM toro_e_Page_100thm.jpg
82373cf3ad0bd9194b9c7319cf182298
7422335ef8f1701f1122c50feecd46d7fe71e593
18614 F20110114_AACTJY toro_e_Page_084.QC.jpg
1827b88c758580e42035c1e4aab6c8db
70cc5bf3711f17fe678e5a321da5a96e245e7afc
23234 F20110114_AACSHK toro_e_Page_038.QC.jpg
1434b51c3d53bd08a370c4b7a85aebe2
6549b13afda337fbe24d8d1e2c0d0e7dc4bc047c
18504 F20110114_AACSGW toro_e_Page_005.QC.jpg
1c5f7226b728a2ff344e78e9db616db9
a26de108677c2bae4f05054bd7da5a779a2dc3a1
6623 F20110114_AACTLC toro_e_Page_113thm.jpg
4a71107f379e58c7df15c1d02f7ede68
ef0bc881739bce4613d5465cdea71fa32800a3c0
6535 F20110114_AACTKN toro_e_Page_101thm.jpg
ee6faa3349518bc98a040c91b6eeda87
904390a4b0a4d0e3932adeffc84e7c1c15c879fd
22495 F20110114_AACTJZ toro_e_Page_085.QC.jpg
38b1770a1397a1c1cf3c09ece4e14512
687027a292b19c98cc0c1a4b87a7b12e2b8cb860
101587 F20110114_AACSIA toro_e_Page_099.jp2
1cec2079df5ac9cddf72ad8657b91e76
1b5e528920d57080bc269e366aae2be70775b6b2
6092 F20110114_AACSHL toro_e_Page_013thm.jpg
e23fd96d347071be84889d5e983319d1
360c209dcbb17883f6245bc538815039911fb2af
1819 F20110114_AACSGX toro_e_Page_072.txt
c16496bcdc558746ed29baa94cbab900
20c73b8be1635afa9f04938f564269fc3faa0503
24369 F20110114_AACTKO toro_e_Page_103.QC.jpg
ae457c06143fed2d5a791678c147fdfd
df3e07ae4aaeedff107668ffc9a6ced8b14ed671
6633 F20110114_AACSHM toro_e_Page_107thm.jpg
caadca123058b3f7cfcac81dc84cf99f
a4084cd31e19e74fdae422efdecac86b8d5439e5
2395 F20110114_AACSGY toro_e_Page_097.txt
474da9e836aa7e8f136510af60736467
bb6dae296ec52f94a65026c999398f165ef43f4c
23889 F20110114_AACTLD toro_e_Page_114.QC.jpg
2b927438342c62e045037c7df594d189
002abd59f650078649db405a54ff76a1bb81263f
6675 F20110114_AACTKP toro_e_Page_103thm.jpg
79bc80b193b02e927b92fd1bdd3f1a0b
c4c3e5a712b0716271b861fe75cac8772fcf5d2c
47367 F20110114_AACSIB toro_e_Page_096.pro
e173b4048216e80368a72d7b02a30c07
3f353f3b7c1574c6b10f564f6108bb65b04adedf
6409 F20110114_AACSHN toro_e_Page_040thm.jpg
b19d702101b0681a0a9222fd731d08e6
8ea311a61522b3c0d6808ad468c82c6a896383c0
F20110114_AACSGZ toro_e_Page_046.tif
dc02bec170f298f619c89df61e44c3b3
ea1d701f350b66869e1fb9c8075e1c3f8f9c1f73
6478 F20110114_AACTLE toro_e_Page_114thm.jpg
88af7998b020df01438abbabd4340c93
bf546c431d3e2f13f9ba8ba50b6e47d86aefa212
23412 F20110114_AACTKQ toro_e_Page_104.QC.jpg
c62bdaec384fa85768d6ff61ab3240b7
56d67d89e1a7cc36ac481535a26b1b56f68473db
71603 F20110114_AACSIC toro_e_Page_059.jpg
2bc56393115400e5ee95fdfdba2df6f8
401a8997c1bcd082672380af290a1dd3960db046
66347 F20110114_AACSHO toro_e_Page_029.jpg
163895facd2238d11eb1ab7f2496d4d0
60a17906b3afd4ed54d77e5e09b9c0fce6de8710
22514 F20110114_AACTLF toro_e_Page_115.QC.jpg
23e6c40889865723e24feeba4a92c3b3
7aa7be8fc20e9eb2ef792e028bdc75002e82774c
6779 F20110114_AACTKR toro_e_Page_104thm.jpg
8547ea2e4de8b72afd4ce84c88817bd9
09d232f86800fe407fd6ee14af7b6fa85154a7ea
54344 F20110114_AACSID toro_e_Page_042.pro
32901bab20825b28c11ab1d5d39dab3c
3c24cfd79384df9133fe8c28203a3b1d156ba629
105052 F20110114_AACSHP toro_e_Page_014.jp2
b98c5b6602b10526a203c6502de19a73
8f50f00da8b41d9b9ae5f351939b03b7c355af39
23207 F20110114_AACTLG toro_e_Page_116.QC.jpg
7918539bfc2d342c7a31b11578f0c350
db41e0843b5cad16243bbe6721ae6ad8aa1cfe35
5712 F20110114_AACTKS toro_e_Page_105thm.jpg
04a5ec51bd57ce644f04276450557ae2
87dc86d0aaae0258806b54258021c9e47e609158
20366 F20110114_AACSIE toro_e_Page_095.QC.jpg
f9a7dc52f031da42beb7416fa398a0a0
91c7a703bf66cf06b34b0e38b3b538855c99458a
106964 F20110114_AACSHQ toro_e_Page_024.jp2
017b784a73a76f0fb540b6244aa577fd
7832028fb07bb4618129c65987fa7805e9554885
25176 F20110114_AACTLH toro_e_Page_117.QC.jpg
6018d201638b9f9de0f19970265de921
fdd05b0252e5464199594899a5ec53bdc836d227
23638 F20110114_AACTKT toro_e_Page_106.QC.jpg
d665e7bc6b4c5d40f8b3183dd0f6bf35
9b47efa24031ec3f7e25daa2f1fbbba2e7a9c929
F20110114_AACSIF toro_e_Page_067.tif
50a1d5862d3a1931e59ce245a0f0c4e3
3fe2ac02b908bf41cf1272823af7c46b73f8c239
2580 F20110114_AACSHR toro_e_Page_143.txt
374933e335788a040b6748554235abc1
aa84de12cef8834e26d15bcd048c46ec9662c76b
F20110114_AACTLI toro_e_Page_117thm.jpg
6dc9fbb861329f1487fecfce4ec41428
844bae8dcc7a832cf5e052bbf1c10e388fecddea
23633 F20110114_AACTKU toro_e_Page_107.QC.jpg
a06a137ebe5e73f227345f04cc60f0fa
a88a68c0b04c9f58a75e1307d6ceabb935ff9957
F20110114_AACSIG toro_e_Page_060.tif
4a4860b7061754ebeddaec3549e91f88
6b786f93c5efcc041e328094a15a2ee055b9360b
5522 F20110114_AACSHS toro_e_Page_084thm.jpg
05724d227aa54abe774a7267a6fedab3
d9c9d7d97b445feabedcf183af26eb9d1353c34f
17400 F20110114_AACTLJ toro_e_Page_118.QC.jpg
51212d790f4bd49fc6e25ae5249fd862
3a8d04e27a72b2a332dde9e7bcca3af50efe7c3c
22492 F20110114_AACTKV toro_e_Page_108.QC.jpg
9d607c1b42f83e70e6245220f02d857e
67482db51bb0d9f46397d8ddfa0162719748aa19
F20110114_AACSIH toro_e_Page_133.tif
f006d225d22ce92dbd8e1cda4086e7e4
b39abaf42ffab16020b5f3dbeca209dac74eb446
50742 F20110114_AACSHT toro_e_Page_045.pro
90db3e8f91af3a54764500a17da9b02f
b53a7a3787aee7f49ee53ed7a9d2cdcb0df66a73
5192 F20110114_AACTLK toro_e_Page_118thm.jpg
925463b1534154c355f45ed6233208d7
9d73153e6e0174783cb5f215f6924d3c3513abaf
6323 F20110114_AACTKW toro_e_Page_108thm.jpg
bc712d15394f0dbd63d268936289406b
0da52afdb00b92495c3f81e99c7d0f4ba25ebaa9
46569 F20110114_AACSII toro_e_Page_021.pro
e28df52bc57b787f78d5c47a1d0ed0ab
7e35d9c72377f31194c57bcdd2b6b134c7321ddc
87598 F20110114_AACSHU toro_e_Page_062.jpg
ca1003343218babaac349495689a4241
d722d9186ebe73de69fe76954fd3bb5acadd7529
13744 F20110114_AACTMA toro_e_Page_134.QC.jpg
07d4a0ee44bbe32398b765e6fd51682e
be447680031c85a16c3ba28ba129b560652e11ba
4142 F20110114_AACTLL toro_e_Page_119thm.jpg
1151487f4f523ca958d24db6b63c749c
5902f3760f1da5822f8807e320710034676d9d10
23407 F20110114_AACTKX toro_e_Page_109.QC.jpg
57f3ac09b7dda1a15060fdf8186d6e3b
9c8934ebe41e32279a24fc326dfaf747137ee985
2096 F20110114_AACSIJ toro_e_Page_054.txt
2f973750d9a6948e63ae9b13ac52c9ed
f4305ba5b6b988e5f4051451c4e1ce791109379a
F20110114_AACSHV toro_e_Page_090.jp2
dceefe5fbeab47f43ec2c4154e6dc653
9c08f9e33366116799823fc0ebfccb0ceeb236b0
4226 F20110114_AACTMB toro_e_Page_134thm.jpg
c5551dae250d0ddcfb01c896744aed9d
0877f70dc9b5e3ebee69990f26ccdcce1c2858de
5317 F20110114_AACTLM toro_e_Page_121thm.jpg
aadd29b8e0219299de7c1ed739acafd6
6339b3cbc375300d6b846436687716d16c332786
22981 F20110114_AACTKY toro_e_Page_110.QC.jpg
9f60c7183e5e0fe1eeb6aafdb73965af
1a20e3b2a36099013f275fd1962696ec520f72f0
F20110114_AACSIK toro_e_Page_096.tif
b8c7df236ad9d197bd09a2d4874a1a47
301131eb2a5c4d6c26da45900ca04edcff71f011
22082 F20110114_AACSHW toro_e_Page_099.QC.jpg
37fb73e92037491151fcf307b77c5b43
c845c6055bee3791cf6a100ef8d4d04bfd5d3d2a
11855 F20110114_AACTMC toro_e_Page_135.QC.jpg
a0fcc834c8f354193da3ae51a1cb65c9
7b5db5782bad739157192b6773df5889f959037a
4337 F20110114_AACTLN toro_e_Page_122thm.jpg
4d95678c10ceba75e3237e300d66a4f8
009b3c134474a40e856777dbef42dae7de11569e
6367 F20110114_AACTKZ toro_e_Page_110thm.jpg
9deee843665fdf52ac2d936cf461e51a
6dde9b3e9564c907aaa0824e1e3966bd5b142ac7
5996 F20110114_AACSIL toro_e_Page_008thm.jpg
e2825f1c252d7c213193c6e81f002f3f
c78a77e7ca245566e3bb0340f85dd7e6b5d22388
4035 F20110114_AACSHX toro_e_Page_132thm.jpg
d06adc58f096fc65e722a62c6c833b86
268799c40bf9fc9cf408e97d025668a8799dadf4
2300 F20110114_AACSJA toro_e_Page_026.txt
6d9cd0d9ab9ea89317f060c615e8ce69
9b655cb8457ce5851084968f9dce00c3cedaf4aa
6418 F20110114_AACTMD toro_e_Page_136thm.jpg
086f11403997b022642ba19fa97d5b7b
367b78c1436b134ef71214a6acc0d230aa3065a9
3745 F20110114_AACTLO toro_e_Page_123thm.jpg
0144ccb04f2f952335e083dcb135ba46
0c6b094631b623f0d0dca37d1f7c96b91048f863
F20110114_AACSIM toro_e_Page_038.tif
2b5aee7562cd8c8ac70c4b3c3d58af79
5dc09fb795c368d61e1eb9d271ffee929aa52dab
F20110114_AACSHY toro_e_Page_037.txt
5fc0376b80fe55f8e990fba948568dd7
7c08db3977f471643c86ff3b848744246d778e3c
6499 F20110114_AACSJB toro_e_Page_038thm.jpg
d987cd38316f7c6175f0275960a2a56e
8c3335a413878c4612cdec65051023459ed6e6d3
15040 F20110114_AACTLP toro_e_Page_124.QC.jpg
71033813675b966ab1969fbd9d1e35a8
692a8b346434f99876c2631aa542a8faa5bcd444
24001 F20110114_AACSIN toro_e_Page_094.QC.jpg
b9e7685a61884b837310d3db1ad67216
5000f6b7c4a5532d10493aecf2c278ffde835025
2706 F20110114_AACSHZ toro_e_Page_007thm.jpg
98a117f8aa2c4c4b2b59fe62fa8332fe
3c6ba7a88288189ac2aaf2edafee3ffbb9d82369
28114 F20110114_AACTME toro_e_Page_137.QC.jpg
28a18f1495b4c73885fc7e22a3a2abc0
a5a34156e3b8b0b1fd0f530413fa550d382de1d3
16448 F20110114_AACTLQ toro_e_Page_125.QC.jpg
50499d5d9c828ace89a5698e2e6279e6
6e37d5f2c49c664f07c54e84b1580c7ce04419fb
67505 F20110114_AACSIO toro_e_Page_099.jpg
4a127126a26eef0037acee8284c3b587
18521ae777f910ff37e5db7362448ee6301d98bc
F20110114_AACSJC toro_e_Page_117.tif
d273c86e2996c38d6f676d0a58d58751
d5326c67b540e022bdfcf743532065564eda6b68
7085 F20110114_AACTMF toro_e_Page_137thm.jpg
d0c71a2cac59b795b8858ae79ebe2327
0a638c0cb71219b27d5c8aea66b799a9395752ba
4931 F20110114_AACTLR toro_e_Page_125thm.jpg
98ddcc6f3d2d6c3d93c80cab809ee881
acd64dfa748a109495ac23994db21317e3b2b580
67168 F20110114_AACSIP toro_e_Page_089.jpg
a0dbbfc3ecb67fcc52791bf88a9da802
a2680bb7f854932146002167a40bc0e54fce9436
1982 F20110114_AACSJD toro_e_Page_024.txt
93db07d12a40f42007735c8f388b5226
db3c6aa91c499f327226e75081a134e6a11a787b
26683 F20110114_AACTMG toro_e_Page_139.QC.jpg
657dee09d688692c63008e0c1432fd2b
36f6f776533ededf3f477ada32ab1e1d2fc4bfc1
7949 F20110114_AACTLS toro_e_Page_127.QC.jpg
8b1121a629c265641776546632333c67
bfd19f60d58234b7ed3699584d8ef944abf5da6a
23094 F20110114_AACSIQ toro_e_Page_081.QC.jpg
c751f4fc4537dbdffcf17dd40f995745
c3001db99f55afe29dd2951e217b350e58418853
19894 F20110114_AACSJE toro_e_Page_105.QC.jpg
ddf35cfb9cdd6a84632369ca20821d64
868210220c63126a8148f980f1e98ee5586305c7
26108 F20110114_AACTMH toro_e_Page_140.QC.jpg
c7b8c3b16941999fd972683380e46cd5
ed6a2f04850e4169ce6c228056e1ef122ff06c22
3590 F20110114_AACTLT toro_e_Page_128thm.jpg
317122a2dd7b1aad6248a4b587d5add3
571e792d533fa12d411e41928abfd3d283da242b
6643 F20110114_AACSIR toro_e_Page_054thm.jpg
15df1823d4a36153bcb0d2c5e020b2d2
92602a60df48b79acd8b34cadd427fd73dbdb792
69613 F20110114_AACSJF toro_e_Page_014.jpg
494a1c98630aecabf312b516bffff35e
966123109a35f19ab26fc90b03a01c9326be5c12
6901 F20110114_AACTMI toro_e_Page_140thm.jpg
10bf0be09a084addc6b710aeeadee076
0b746f1a3a3fa0521ab86705c4670e27a29fc469
12797 F20110114_AACTLU toro_e_Page_129.QC.jpg
6387ec918bcd1ef9bd0199482786a7f3
b0cf56677796dab471cce9c35f532bd150769e30
48571 F20110114_AACSIS toro_e_Page_111.pro
f3d1087c9aee2730e9457da44e81d49c
cbe0d60bf10edbf4cae1ebb4311969d867b72f28
F20110114_AACSJG toro_e_Page_072.tif
4dda3b23b718fe2a350f39fe9a32fb5f
7729900112dbfc260626199674354051a4164a09
28384 F20110114_AACTMJ toro_e_Page_141.QC.jpg
4bb43d001411f2a47a69602f06cf7393
2afd919c9b941e1b9806e41b518a72c57602e875
3772 F20110114_AACTLV toro_e_Page_129thm.jpg
1ebfd01cfe1c31cf34fa7c6978015abf
49223d5c259e5db5aea03a6591620c58ded07fe4
49104 F20110114_AACSIT toro_e_Page_126.jp2
f1e6f52db7eb189a9ebe397abdfdefba
7b2b31f341eca18eefb2262ed988bffd7cd30c4d
4768 F20110114_AACSJH toro_e_Page_120thm.jpg
43b3c38807d8450fe3f9620d17a7549d
4b5c330efdb3bcf3db4628a6dfb2a9b9be297063
6969 F20110114_AACTMK toro_e_Page_142thm.jpg
d90efced92e04fb9cdcc2505800657ac
8d45a410df5c1e6131440f4e88fcb04397e51172
12199 F20110114_AACTLW toro_e_Page_130.QC.jpg
700d106228a68977c27fd8d0e2d38e04
898dc505283ae0a918ffddd1f839c9f9c3c80f45
74721 F20110114_AACSIU toro_e_Page_103.jpg
29c9b63d87bb417c801f933c971e17b3
1cfc4a2b77e477d85d3fe2f7f713162ef2050117
F20110114_AACSJI toro_e_Page_140.tif
dc61ce2062d39838f6287b8ca4bdbbb6
0fa4362047c6bde1f7fccdcda0ca2a6c83c9bafd
27985 F20110114_AACTML toro_e_Page_143.QC.jpg
def32e261f2c5d3e4e07f9324a947d48
9aad2983eecab732097764d193a6d97a105da4e8
3658 F20110114_AACTLX toro_e_Page_130thm.jpg
de1567734bf4cc949fe997756a51dd14
bf0f3d55c890e81b666ca9f4c4db1660b626f6d0
23376 F20110114_AACSIV toro_e_Page_101.QC.jpg
9caabc48e7ddf70a42ab72c56c88dcac
ad49042f0e657065ccdd295a683faa5639b2797f
23669 F20110114_AACSJJ toro_e_Page_060.QC.jpg
9a8e8bed4e265838d48261271be1ee4a
540dfcdb1b707e9457d56060d461c6a091bd9c1c
20216 F20110114_AACTMM toro_e_Page_145.QC.jpg
6930dd46066abd597ff155a706e31928
c29d23517d703010af230c96df035756c8efcc01
12309 F20110114_AACTLY toro_e_Page_131.QC.jpg
c4be7a99b65b703479a3b14ef2b7bff9
a1fb09122fe8222702ca1a984cb502986aca67b8
F20110114_AACSIW toro_e_Page_031.tif
3e2836931ebd4aaba7f0f21dac686368
cc76ebd7c6fdb17f2659c8f4d86fe5d2f30b6a3c
68443 F20110114_AACSJK toro_e_Page_077.jpg
2ba89f688efb25841d55bcd5173cdea3
bd4c1e0ddfb32a50e9390c4b1741aa1f342aefa9
3402 F20110114_AACTLZ toro_e_Page_133thm.jpg
2a68eda240eeebe6e7d1c7186500ba8a
b8fc03c6fce240373dc810fcd7f0dab2e0ba4edc
50823 F20110114_AACSIX toro_e_Page_071.jpg
fe58516c576d8c4f7df4ddc7d334a307
783c493f9c0d3ed9f7295d77f6a3b51163b31f9d
F20110114_AACSKA toro_e_Page_057thm.jpg
25ee382c226cbd419b37c4898da1d48f
682f22fdc5e5df02d70af4ed0b6f3d8ab0e6a83a
F20110114_AACSJL toro_e_Page_066.tif
3104eb20e2b66efdcceb27a34157c9cc
b44117a58a1b37035d3cb558ffe85bea49e73d3a
51306 F20110114_AACSIY toro_e_Page_069.pro
4f8e19220346b5a7aff6489a9c255236
04e7e60f050721e1904f658717a89013f35cf321
945804 F20110114_AACSKB toro_e_Page_093.jp2
376c067d148b2c3295a856f3ddbab696
f7da6359159fa0d7103884e7546b3dafadfeb9ed
22456 F20110114_AACSJM toro_e_Page_146.jpg
1c8a420763f5a9c21ad617e3c123a676
0f272061f128c4d6f2b56f54a0acbc015b434d37
2585 F20110114_AACSIZ toro_e_Page_084.txt
06a3af3cd873f8b97b9eefb1816a8d54
5c4dfb85108972ee1400affe4047595d3f2d4bfc
72114 F20110114_AACSKC toro_e_Page_073.jpg
7c6367da2c22c02baf4aec604edf1031
a74f3b22299ceba5225852b96685fb6d8ba684f1
66261 F20110114_AACSJN toro_e_Page_013.jpg
628a380d78462f679be462c08f8ddd80
97019fabd4736a3caeb3afb7ef06c2cfe9a25f12
1995 F20110114_AACSJO toro_e_Page_104.txt
d67778ce5b3311ff2efce1aa16674451
26bb569f86269b833ccc55817658e7c932fa6883
47531 F20110114_AACSKD toro_e_Page_077.pro
6aee41c7f4833e3a34af179e4626281a
52bce8c31104a53914495b5bac7b17cc5a538086
23415 F20110114_AACSJP toro_e_Page_074.QC.jpg
421810e9cc1a787412c34ce321406fe3
a48668b991f539f9bc8f14f88e1874506047764f
F20110114_AACSKE toro_e_Page_132.tif
62e40794a006d0030d15e5d0d733d1d9
aab42366a72eb1b17610668ef54d627576aadb31
49206 F20110114_AACSJQ toro_e_Page_024.pro
850a122d90dc9063fad3c9ef37f10423
4e41c4403cce49795d307ad391ec5ffbf5a421da
109876 F20110114_AACSKF toro_e_Page_055.jp2
74bdc4f799b58b5915fb564866793cc8
cd027c97e57343572c2d6ab95684d3c4db35ebee
72081 F20110114_AACSJR toro_e_Page_038.jpg
b9fd7ceda52ee94650d907f3ce40557f
83e01e29afedd73e1f03695e18eae3bf3d43ef11
2414 F20110114_AACSKG toro_e_Page_142.txt
468767d422c015fbd0f14dddd95c15dc
827a837f6e78d5dee42e2e3e7962d6a1ccb3ebf9
21307 F20110114_AACSJS toro_e_Page_098.QC.jpg
7ca160699df9cc8cdf7d94f6f2ab0b2c
6b8fe86b32a502711a452c3bc43cfa6a473ebc94
F20110114_AACSKH toro_e_Page_130.tif
9867549b4a4159071640467df83d0780
94418de6ad3170cd371f4b185bf48bdb40bcf77e
59925 F20110114_AACSJT toro_e_Page_100.pro
2d2d328f3259ade8017d98eebf90f0ed
b568297f3469fc81b1f22d58ba19e55a4a760fdd
F20110114_AACSKI toro_e_Page_102.tif
05138f3f38b70b614614c72936a8256c
efc443cca2109e690bc599a540939de25ca2fe48
F20110114_AACSJU toro_e_Page_074.tif
071e1edab6950d0e58cff67c98fabda2
2408886f87abade2e63d2fee847845624746f11d
F20110114_AACSKJ toro_e_Page_128.tif
c28495eeded2f132bbf35554735422a6
e198d932671f42e2db57c957cb5681f59e482197
49360 F20110114_AACSJV toro_e_Page_116.pro
d21d95fce0d29afeb8756951a23f98e3
ff7a15f3fa77c012dc0532fbef72113c01111610
1226 F20110114_AACSKK toro_e_Page_122.txt
b41af8597b331587cc810d2de4713e25
9194b647ba925550f1545305cb499d880cc5899c
55132 F20110114_AACSJW toro_e_Page_026.pro
e306108081db33193708f210e739065c
07b6a3d389b1baed5755c499be5c17c88fa35ab2
20696 F20110114_AACSLA toro_e_Page_012.QC.jpg
ba9c81618ef2e74fa2dfbdba176faff3
edec485aef18523ff61fa6fd30109a6798785b34
60229 F20110114_AACSKL toro_e_Page_140.pro
d525ceceb196714ba0b86c1e72e056a3
ae0fd81f81c0a4f7120f014b217cc749bb9a6060
772150 F20110114_AACSJX toro_e_Page_086.jp2
85f262b2a9d87e59f45f290a2ef0c63a
d2e6be625b4d99663450856c79efceab231799ac
6311 F20110114_AACSLB toro_e_Page_081thm.jpg
f0e27effc3107bf17b6d71e217cda619
a1419c9883b844da9c1c748dc53f1b970b304f1a
F20110114_AACSKM toro_e_Page_070.tif
11bff42629693dda67a18c9f589579a5
d61789d4fe6a62ade0c014f1cb072a882500f3c3
6531 F20110114_AACSJY toro_e_Page_051thm.jpg
bf940802b1c8d13cfe8dcc360fd4231a
bc9cb26378db6c540bdb97f5736ade4d2444efab
73596 F20110114_AACSLC toro_e_Page_054.jpg
a3665e5984a309000deec9a575140084
447e4f57209ae65b542263f504c1b2888221ab94
36083 F20110114_AACSKN toro_e_Page_082.jpg
f4efa15a4a04f5b74d51ab78ed8a3671
e55d7a88c29e8b976c4ce9aead49a21008684445
27746 F20110114_AACSJZ toro_e_Page_146.jp2
58103eaeb6e7641e43a4f3416a790b33
ea5416750a36d32f072e0e74fbd8e131e0846a5e
24067 F20110114_AACSLD toro_e_Page_064.QC.jpg
5d404a0180d038d2846c31450a8c45fa
062f3431cccc14985ebdabcbc39bb61537320501
2198 F20110114_AACSKO toro_e_Page_087.txt
c180cea971a909a5ec56c885d352a722
64a58fd943b857c3d8347277750046ee73b7c84a
F20110114_AACSKP toro_e_Page_042.tif
02b4609a2f37f689eb477284bb426af9
a4d68d69bddfe3162fe0f19041bae633853b67ed
22793 F20110114_AACSLE toro_e_Page_111.QC.jpg
65eb1ab6bbc859d5e3b7e64cd4f82eb7
deca96faa0b2ccb0d9a61bc6a59521768d7c3fe6
1943 F20110114_AACSKQ toro_e_Page_019.txt
2b26dea2d1f9c454f8eededd708857f9
cf238c2a6f370e643fff7aaef6f0dbbdc8ba6323
6469 F20110114_AACSLF toro_e_Page_073thm.jpg
e554a99ca6771da78f4c5b78105fc5ae
a0fd4bf3e53f91e7597c11304eee9f5cebf6a682
47546 F20110114_AACSKR toro_e_Page_080.pro
c3e779d9949ad9d5a01d1c18cc948ff2
9c81d0f0e021099883914ed40d1e5344c8e426d3
24033 F20110114_AACSLG toro_e_Page_031.QC.jpg
f526627beba71ebef281f5231c0865e3
02d43c3feecfd9c1a5c7766fca4a2c5451afeddf
989914 F20110114_AACSKS toro_e_Page_096.jp2
eeb40f33f20265302e1d5a33044b86c3
887d18ec03b54cb261a549f2734790a3f14f4466
F20110114_AACSLH toro_e_Page_029.tif
80f2e20cc69587fda8866b2c6c47a6bf
6d7a0e02307dc78672fec66ba3821de7a4380c7f
2805 F20110114_AACSKT toro_e_Page_127thm.jpg
1bb06eb6bde108f2c3f44e2b2fd58cd8
c6e273a036e28b0b6945648ada626e3a2722c869
2426 F20110114_AACSLI toro_e_Page_139.txt
2c0206c2105130bca54c3da39b4e047e
051263bdde4488e32442b600c579989df1054862
F20110114_AACSKU toro_e_Page_009.tif
f8f30f3c76f9ed05b15a53162f170445
9d432f00d67489a2d89ac4220e28ac4c6bcb79fc
1838 F20110114_AACSLJ toro_e_Page_099.txt
b31bc410e414e13c6b78903ff45185de
839c3fd4509f08f5e971b217b7ca126501aa8197
F20110114_AACSKV toro_e_Page_099.tif
0d330f040f863d7fbe922b25d404c7ed
cb1a14068cef16c7ed58c9edcf32e04f1d0e5a12
50844 F20110114_AACSLK toro_e_Page_032.pro
9a470342783c0d7c241258e323057a9d
559f5a2678e6bf5e330dbf686621ab14f927bbac
63481 F20110114_AACSKW toro_e_Page_117.pro
a2ec7e90850002fde15396183996a517
c88a069d1b29ee966b84f7e2ac94f957a32bfd2a
23932 F20110114_AACSLL toro_e_Page_053.QC.jpg
95cea2276dcfa996f2156cbf90526976
4c3fdaade395c33d1788bbc464c3cd04e9350e5b
1381 F20110114_AACSKX toro_e_Page_002.pro
c680ef7b6aa2f1900fa20bb7fb2a128b
4811ccc8adf70323a44c94e71623ee955a1f38a5
1051979 F20110114_AACSMA toro_e_Page_008.jp2
5012b3b37eb8dea20dee37d3d386e6bc
6a18922584be7bbc06a3f08fa2a58872bf57376e
1118 F20110114_AACSLM toro_e_Page_126.txt
f9bdff82ea96c0f65c07032850669e3c
38d5ee5cb5a0076842361b278eb145eee518e5b7
2139 F20110114_AACSKY toro_e_Page_036.txt
4ee3494fa668b7a6a23cd12b09dae821
8e091248bcc13346c7a4c0bc8a5cb8950e6d992f
5753 F20110114_AACSMB toro_e_Page_012thm.jpg
72f78b30f98caf3267258cfbd2928073
561097b91d45ceb9b56838259d61ae19d4511f30
2417 F20110114_AACSKZ toro_e_Page_146thm.jpg
30bf128b23dbd89ccdeb259f8cc36338
37f10b8e687f516095e72b16a99f33308215779d
21251 F20110114_AACSMC toro_e_Page_126.pro
48e6260a78ea0b5ec5c06d050291e492
33df8fed0e65ca3fa9ba303a0110f529828cdcf2
3639 F20110114_AACSLN toro_e_Page_126thm.jpg
7c499ee9570343cac2f5686db9135c70
0dade20074c415e737d132dc48b1b5dcc9ed48c1
51198 F20110114_AACSMD toro_e_Page_114.pro
b03d145200da46ad3586b380ba993345
e78e0f88cf4938ff41051bcdb3fd95c471321288
F20110114_AACSLO toro_e_Page_122.tif
7d45efbcb099745f81fca7b3e6a4347b
9a86858b2bc43eda976f1350d3bdb456bcc8c83a
2595 F20110114_AACSME toro_e_Page_137.txt
c96d0ca515aa7d271474d4a648b76bd4
854673ac3a7b1059731dbcc8e7787213a0835c98
47613 F20110114_AACSLP toro_e_Page_086.pro
97b845f77ceb05c8f328092f119bb9a6
f290fe8558f7d7f6eff5b1909db4ba91caa253d5
5940 F20110114_AACSLQ toro_e_Page_145thm.jpg
b9e9f0bba79e916948f2ce98ea913419
4592d2d10b64db50047e64f6b7a153ea89a379f3
50135 F20110114_AACSMF toro_e_Page_043.pro
6178d147b0a205b09777422d94b751ef
e3f1b1779b2f66d26991975642481b52d74e58c8
1714 F20110114_AACSLR toro_e_Page_010.txt
aef6094391d8ea3873ea4d08929819d3
14944febf2b47345f3b648509384b5c9f37e8f54
69742 F20110114_AACSMG toro_e_Page_108.jpg
54729e118b8545b8c25d728612b8c1e3
58b38398dd0dcbce3c906ef4a9ddb7e99adacc53
480 F20110114_AACSLS toro_e_Page_127.txt
55036d3383bf4c5f3fbc8821299c150f
793d78b423ea92ebbf7f3d85154ba4002942a043
106995 F20110114_AACSMH toro_e_Page_036.jp2
983085f72a9a349ee0607776a8a09d5c
2e265553eed70b88c77e07292c3cc7ffd1c0a4dd
63331 F20110114_AACSLT toro_e_Page_145.jpg
8bfebfd7eb42faae0ba0834897f7b838
1b09260d2f30157822c86d3556d9f5cae378b720
6243 F20110114_AACSMI toro_e_Page_087thm.jpg
e1d583014d4a7804cbfacd703d28c18c
a94327876d42e22f31d1d781493be801caff1dbc
108849 F20110114_AACSLU toro_e_Page_068.jp2
9e4222d1683b47a2641c3cf01befe235
5de5dc642f80b956cba9df8cbe3b290b7b3292c5
6327 F20110114_AACSMJ toro_e_Page_026thm.jpg
dc0d62ee6576622c83c203f37165359a
19f2fec32634074b7c5e56de8fffcafa5f3f1b40
820339 F20110114_AACSLV toro_e_Page_088.jp2
eee65b1ad2c7eb8183bc46bd4d1e0778
a2eaf8400493b1bc2a32f79392facb68e24cd896
F20110114_AACSMK toro_e_Page_036.tif
98ff56fa339c3620a2136865f5817c8c
7db49270e61d769bd8f53a475d774aec4a42ca8a
73268 F20110114_AACSLW toro_e_Page_063.jpg
3c1b7b7f1c70e800c3e6cb260aa1578f
3af96460f83262da7f15157f5ad68f81be78a61e
F20110114_AACSNA toro_e_Page_015.tif
fead129bab68744adc6b34dad2c9a755
8e02518e2fed422e4e078e54f6218ad82f5f6aa6
1965 F20110114_AACSML toro_e_Page_109.txt
ca76e37e38976b76f4201a0d0ec86b66
487fd4e16c4e0eaa061d4e52e9d909014af3097e
85458 F20110114_AACSLX toro_e_Page_033.jp2
fdea78b168f5888ff6e6e4a0e931d34d
c2eeef5281f14430ab985726d6075f2aa80dd2dc
45914 F20110114_AACSNB toro_e_Page_098.pro
4d701887db80d9f2fbd86d49e4e301e2
941edb25e10efdd65fcefb0fb1d3305765212453
35776 F20110114_AACSMM toro_e_Page_135.jpg
437eb9558ad9b787d481f98afddcd093
f85240fc0ea29b881eef2212f00ed9719f5eacf7
108523 F20110114_AACSLY toro_e_Page_074.jp2
1e85885fd0d04e5b4f5045f12985b69c
9a73b18574d2874b99e8c803ae71245a86f91dcd
8215 F20110114_AACSNC toro_e_Page_001.QC.jpg
7638b35a9cbc3e6f019c269b60e44e7c
134cf133fdd3137028caca16f59a58240b5d31b6
44165 F20110114_AACSMN toro_e_Page_072.pro
eb444b7825eec7bf083ddbefddca52ee
a92f4d4dbb5e7dfa789a52b70f40a170fa1f391b
29951 F20110114_AACSLZ toro_e_Page_007.jpg
f11aff9787dc396e1a61e0395bcee2f9
73c695c6bfb430cf4c8fe341b319de1eb518c67d
3832 F20110114_AACSND toro_e_Page_135thm.jpg
136be0052eadfbe3e90ab42d07d343a7
14afe18cd75a0dafa51fff602da00e71d3d42023
28707 F20110114_AACSMO toro_e_Page_138.QC.jpg
ed7d73c3260503774afed29d628c52b4
897bca3e98959e489289fcf14a7b243b83c4a909
12212 F20110114_AACSNE toro_e_Page_126.QC.jpg
89e144ebc1b640c22f9e49616ef572da
41bf169901d82730e1422181cc9e96773e2beadb
F20110114_AACSMP toro_e_Page_127.tif
1f3311d094bdfd5042a4ef177dd85cca
6776d142f786bb72f275f49a481b812b2334fde0
50302 F20110114_AACSNF toro_e_Page_046.pro
23f4de3aa5bbfe6e6de511aff96cf685
32f2bf07fa2e0bb50d9ef9f6a12bd1063033cb63
67478 F20110114_AACSMQ toro_e_Page_021.jpg
2e5df365731e43f0cfeeb81f93efdc73
b2f3e8de247d30f2b440c765d0f45bdb612d352c
106390 F20110114_AACSMR toro_e_Page_011.jp2
887f91dd9a73adb68cdf17761c01c38d
8656bb823dee5482b84e0b928734244746070b52
12599 F20110114_AACSNG toro_e_Page_123.QC.jpg
13e806d3a3250985b47353e4a0ae73e8
8b515902ee15eaf939dd81b60d87696e3a201ff3
105637 F20110114_AACSMS toro_e_Page_081.jp2
d5c191fe0dbdb94e17c1ad2f67c25ae2
3315ff709a0d76423be78a9487eda78bafba47ae
6494 F20110114_AACSNH toro_e_Page_096thm.jpg
e4727b0a518961524acf19aa70f40497
8f67d3c27808c1d48e9b02f999c669074e423c3e
118053 F20110114_AACSMT toro_e_Page_066.jp2
6b5380f91605f8e3b685222e3252dbc4
23b5d3b2bb6b47b460a197e6468cb3cadf03f6a3
5823 F20110114_AACSNI toro_e_Page_086thm.jpg
a79f60a178a0525d770a04fc253a606a
8bf6de9d3a951503f0c611f92bdec0bf8cbbe201
6456 F20110114_AACSMU toro_e_Page_056thm.jpg
abe241cab23258945b9966aa3a3fa0e5
24d44c4b5ef9a99b0a98ff6301f0ed8728106851
F20110114_AACSNJ toro_e_Page_116thm.jpg
72e276872f9a4c35be42c6395c66e77c
68ce05d7240870fa27a7dd9d7a7be553683ab151
6550 F20110114_AACSMV toro_e_Page_049thm.jpg
b64bb261758e7bf1feda0305b6c4b934
add12763abe4d871a2a4bfe16a37e9d738592653
1808 F20110114_AACSNK toro_e_Page_012.txt
d2f988ebcb0bd443982cdaf52bb9bffb
4ad871a566ae9809255773e75eab7b4db0dc27a8
71248 F20110114_AACSMW toro_e_Page_125.jp2
c45d5cc6dd09a6d3cf09f9dc5d6ce540
494189e729a0f69e6ff4ce7b4d2f6afb7576ad7e
F20110114_AACSNL toro_e_Page_086.txt
e8e414304a1c2a72386133e17f0e3c61
46dc10156f9097c6a4d48ac46b0200f41607ac40
1980 F20110114_AACSMX toro_e_Page_025.txt
e28c91ad1585d1e7b9390c3eec320fc7
cc42999f11ce985af2322f362ef188a17b29222e
108097 F20110114_AACSOA toro_e_Page_061.jp2
32a28435988fb752327f709bc526b448
1f7b03cb0d88522da86a643b6a56623a8ce06912
51243 F20110114_AACSNM toro_e_Page_101.pro
49355d9279977fbc5a220d7140ec3a5a
707d9970ae90e1fd823d1ad55ebc15a410173c56
7110 F20110114_AACSMY toro_e_Page_062thm.jpg
ac2c91a60b3990f50bb42c7a0160a1a3
b39d3f1fcafb4b1a11a5f4ae313973bf5de176c0
1999 F20110114_AACSOB toro_e_Page_049.txt
b2bfde3863d0c26140bc335e19f12522
665df11a44fe64c52085b15adec051d5fe4c3521
16493 F20110114_AACSNN toro_e_Page_135.pro
0aa2280101ded01ad9b7f16d40b7c066
5012546e0d22ab39b5d53ff836a921a70ebb7ddf
F20110114_AACSMZ toro_e_Page_030.tif
0c27f226d705b1427983bfb44d40ce59
0130fbeef4465feeb78c5973aea0b48ad4b612cf
71622 F20110114_AACSOC toro_e_Page_116.jpg
3f01114b242392acdff4704c52161cb2
f9c7b2cfdee5545cab877c666915848137263f1b
22865 F20110114_AACSNO toro_e_Page_052.QC.jpg
a56464d46011ad68a3be5341b7c383f2
468066fb2c6230eba338a88122d5c21fd8e68028
111755 F20110114_AACSOD toro_e_Page_069.jp2
724b768fa4de92673477870d877be8a3
8659ef86c8a5c7fc129a2ddc570d2854ae9356cc
13085 F20110114_AACSNP toro_e_Page_119.QC.jpg
e55f9de43669d81e397d60746b04c6cf
b49396e5eae718646bfc3939fb245c826ddcd1e9
2226 F20110114_AACSOE toro_e_Page_030.txt
766fc93fb599ff2bafb74b2780efab83
6d89052147ab23833cd6e5903c4a14220faeef82
59519 F20110114_AACSNQ toro_e_Page_031.pro
85e9d13581ea76cf29570033d6bc7d94
17677908a1e98067fd399b5050a67279a9efcbda
2007 F20110114_AACSOF toro_e_Page_050.txt
cab8531de5833f32efce45d34cb2eae0
719c7505b0e0ef4b1325a0a57eeeb1e740d6b4e8
11810 F20110114_AACSNR toro_e_Page_128.QC.jpg
7256925d76598a11f8f918d9dadf6193
70d6f3ae126b799e18a84d32f4803b85bc10a9d2
2125 F20110114_AACSOG toro_e_Page_136.txt
285d6f477df6a0cbc6723b4e341881f0
30dcfad841e1797bb0876c0a4cc4b5180bb4e052
71604 F20110114_AACSNS toro_e_Page_074.jpg
b3bc1bd80322f6ddfeffca5f8d0f8498
e029e4d5b5d5030654331a1ba75458fd11983875
2555 F20110114_AACSNT toro_e_Page_144thm.jpg
709774264e718d46d99b6995a6334792
be9677de8792d13fc6706ea37fc07ae85fc8e136
F20110114_AACSOH toro_e_Page_110.txt
eea09cf1ecf502e5b84560a89c874801
4dcd2fe6742f4b108f1d9202d2de2e89a5607a42
100650 F20110114_AACSNU toro_e_Page_013.jp2
95fd5585ea0de2bc812b619360778933
00aa1407312cfdfe8d88fd34b15a343ec81e794d
F20110114_AACSOI toro_e_Page_073.tif
ef607af07d44e7193ee56533bfd120e3
42d6b2203abc03dfc8ef8276f9b9f1d964cd6e38
87178 F20110114_AACSNV toro_e_Page_010.jp2
6cf286146567673c215b7fc9d30995bb
deca1bf3f14d0df9281dfdbdddb4fb7e1cf778ac
F20110114_AACSOJ toro_e_Page_032.tif
76134406c9d0c6afadfeddb814d00998
7b1fbb50864f4d6476597329852e9ab1cf8655f8
68341 F20110114_AACSNW toro_e_Page_078.jpg
21cd9baa44d58fd6b6476abe20ee0ca7
031d39d9ecf239d4348f468c928cff53c850c2a5
2616 F20110114_AACSOK toro_e_Page_117.txt
927ef1f6d53a5947583569bd1cdeb049
bed9d0a65e86258c8f0f24266911eca6d115aba8
F20110114_AACSNX toro_e_Page_123.tif
cae5735faa33fe864332e40722f0320d
af573637e55c8ce89a4c13e80840704cd56acdc7
13983 F20110114_AACSPA toro_e_Page_122.QC.jpg
657224ab1a0aa5289129311674cf1fb1
de7680409349b6df8ce6bd28a68e47d97e355553
F20110114_AACSOL toro_e_Page_110.tif
19cf12d135f9515ab2409506fc0854f7
339f2b3c9e04b06598012f8512f1409d960b72ba
50749 F20110114_AACSNY toro_e_Page_093.pro
5a8fdf10675190edbb30e3398332ee98
5958586baf6c02f5b5af6cacd9bb77bf69be7181
19693 F20110114_AACSPB toro_e_Page_007.pro
41b3920d8b6bcfcefa7b2fe57cd9513c
7a06cf075a07ce87939e46c8b0fef5581df82e9b
109246 F20110114_AACSOM toro_e_Page_045.jp2
fb484c92999077306a0276804fd83214
f2e5bbc5996780809a3c48564bb6f10ff77902e2
F20110114_AACSNZ toro_e_Page_034.txt
80b611b03615e35a916fe0affbcf3206
31f02e1807ce5093f0333f25a6f391ef796dbc52
49565 F20110114_AACSPC toro_e_Page_112.pro
d1baadfb520e6464fa2bdf3f18fa0625
5598a09858406153e342a68d7ee0d976838025cf
80323 F20110114_AACSON toro_e_Page_090.jpg
5cf7f328e025f66f45e86473b4c7b046
516ea4673d0d1318e7ef248371bd14bd87f2c20b
67660 F20110114_AACSPD toro_e_Page_080.jpg
c46cdd5b1169ef4aa41772fe2d7e9d32
8977b59fda0338e991c44500780ac6b16514a45a
104871 F20110114_AACSOO toro_e_Page_067.jp2
b2882c151448fce5ef083db9ce1282cd
4af7c08eb47b6c0224147ab608e2af7d0d5c1cd9
F20110114_AACSPE toro_e_Page_097.tif
2801e8384c7c6208fe97d7255dd96722
c3c2917d0bc6a59776e6a7e440ecb81197ba777c
24439 F20110114_AACSOP toro_e_Page_132.pro
02032627f137b9a15a007af0f79c1646
6675c3d578798d5d2116698a272f1e5899a42816
6400 F20110114_AACSPF toro_e_Page_011thm.jpg
31a4c2f7da0090bc61b32d7dba514f22
a2ef6330a824d7ed3d17e20831812969882504dd
48861 F20110114_AACSOQ toro_e_Page_102.pro
f9b23ba008482bd33e64c1d34349e54f
59c61c7138a22d96ec0ae0a9fc46a255b4d224f8
937505 F20110114_AACSPG toro_e_Page_085.jp2
5c8da0e8d771d0a8b726e535c142d0ba
999348763036dbcd5b6d4a1ecdebd80d9b96a79b
112467 F20110114_AACSOR toro_e_Page_057.jp2
4851938cac38eeb3d70764b9fdcd6529
92e1f87c0712a48481f459132bbd188a2982066d
26352 F20110114_AACSPH toro_e_Page_062.QC.jpg
8afc316aeac5075ce3ba839cefec4f8c
a5fa9809d2210dd5567431d42ad4f1be3a1bdfd9
6812 F20110114_AACSOS toro_e_Page_097thm.jpg
27138d2fc7f79ddec0a4f1cc6894021f
510248d725a67ead1450e7e3d7b3d4e1c36f2ecb
F20110114_AACSOT toro_e_Page_138.tif
c3372d0bee1159a012ba13e7cfa2b44c
3bd63d6cbef14d453c8a21085f59f1f5e1f0517e
5979 F20110114_AACSPI toro_e_Page_098thm.jpg
84eff69e337dad3415013fd7ebf4e6af
3472dc4499330a783224dd058967c5df1cbe284e
1835 F20110114_AACSOU toro_e_Page_029.txt
3d2c5b749a9ccce8b5699bc17d4172d7
7c4b5b98c31932214f66bb7bd241eaa4d200df4c
6413 F20110114_AACSPJ toro_e_Page_037thm.jpg
ec62c870894591a7293181521256e1a2
ff31f5e640abc29c3531e135a843de2ae9e0eac9
71800 F20110114_AACSOV toro_e_Page_046.jpg
fe7a4f6bf41e05d6fa6528efec4dd20d
8b41c38f326107b0014c2d0b1fc1b5ee63a191ca
20009 F20110114_AACSPK toro_e_Page_075.QC.jpg
ccf1e115c8f4ae05bc663838808795e9
343f6e4e392172f15ced19bf5c55b88f568f24c6
51408 F20110114_AACSOW toro_e_Page_125.jpg
bb09422e70178cda32cc81d64b73b7dc
bb525d919df5a69fedfe21a3018b86c8d6e19dff
23898 F20110114_AACSQA toro_e_Page_039.QC.jpg
ebb96e247de21608ae6ec054e9b4b59f
fbe6e9096152e71aef5da54205c94f361b4d42fa
96379 F20110114_AACSPL toro_e_Page_072.jp2
4a4b5f9d49c2b2d92e935018f619a0f1
ea6d92e5917b822dd7f47b6f8d01bc2f319f488b
F20110114_AACSOX toro_e_Page_027.tif
d6d37e1d3fe95517ec6c6a53144db2b9
e5ee6052e494cde6f3c5514b192d1ac98dbca1aa
7432 F20110114_AACSQB toro_e_Page_146.QC.jpg
9f77b591469fd4e2dbe16cb35d06bdcb
61a1ec3efa6191b4fc38fce94654bd7ec8e9de80
14126 F20110114_AACSPM toro_e_Page_132.QC.jpg
1aa06f9a1fedf5217f09bcf8faffde16
ce3f4a8d186f935eba979d23f0b56dca49f29e1c
69933 F20110114_AACSOY toro_e_Page_111.jpg
ae622cca04e09982f305df30a7d6c174
a4b3178c2983d89da56ed38295655592018792fb
71491 F20110114_AACSQC toro_e_Page_070.jpg
024c2e114effe19d4ecf079347b7d208
d50bbc8b306331bf21469bdc1fc38c00aee9ee4c
107423 F20110114_AACSPN toro_e_Page_019.jp2
767682bcd76ad85c7321ed48cbedbbac
9af2f8d6de2d38df5f71c35a3449ac4b7ae2f099
6765 F20110114_AACSOZ toro_e_Page_030thm.jpg
8c9051f252f8efbf01a9a8c47bfd439b
61bd540ad00183320801c79e923c7eb65559bf5a
F20110114_AACSQD toro_e_Page_051.txt
0929c89cc6b54430893d6ed398d8f75f
696d5a65c703ed687f63892a3019baaee2735c4a
19719 F20110114_AACSPO toro_e_Page_004.QC.jpg
26113922bdd1ff67d02267c2d90f300b
3f842079f9229db58b880a307b655cbe24f1f175
3651 F20110114_AACSQE toro_e_Page_131thm.jpg
4dc13c08dbe8d237fc44892f43e5bf4c
29c9507e42818f97b48df072be85bd822499a302
1832 F20110114_AACSPP toro_e_Page_065.txt
911035e252efe548f47dcfe97afc595d
953eb63a2370809da0c4adbd756fc33b37f7803d
F20110114_AACSQF toro_e_Page_003.tif
175d6f49829db48e2e3c7ac63d517594
b693b6f1b186ca7268d26638b48ea63f3e180abb
6200 F20110114_AACSPQ toro_e_Page_099thm.jpg
7d09ce64a1eeb66c14750e40584baf45
da33e4a53516e865a130f1a484948b93af17629c
112381 F20110114_AACSQG toro_e_Page_103.jp2
409d37651be54a03b3fbd3ec202bc412
dd588afcc08d0fd45c8afc3b2104c85fbce84e0e
2526681 F20110114_AACSPR toro_e.pdf
9eb0d23330a8d42b69dc0ac4a36efcad
b0c02de237b8449094223b64ab536edae8defb48
F20110114_AACSQH toro_e_Page_036.QC.jpg
66b434068a2c85cd144acced3284520e
7d0f4070d58a6d07ce0a2f60ac7da070dd0e51ad
23241 F20110114_AACSPS toro_e_Page_048.QC.jpg
826f1ec2cee3de3e6e0c1553db4fe62e
36a1920f1ff87740eb914fdf75751fd6d7b78831
1958 F20110114_AACSQI toro_e_Page_070.txt
33310978df83b0ee5c0d5ab827e8e93b
827315bde20aff6da2281cc1dc81c319761965a5
1580 F20110114_AACSPT toro_e_Page_120.txt
4922e23e7ecbf35b0a9bec85d9bb20a6
c9bd6d88a7725bbf6c4a0a2e6b5b7639bdcdc1d4
23371 F20110114_AACSPU toro_e_Page_019.QC.jpg
deb3da64d6c4083a9e6c627df40f54b3
9e65a61c40b0b8c4c02e236a12314cc0683859ab
105646 F20110114_AACSQJ toro_e_Page_047.jp2
d528a6b56af9956a8dff29c4a4f58dad
fadbc0a57bb136aea7f18b298b872ddac3e58481
F20110114_AACSPV toro_e_Page_103.txt
c8cf46824d0f0ba1a4920abfc9faa7cc
32285c82e8c82191b823bdec4c0b88d4b4d479fe
22368 F20110114_AACSPW toro_e_Page_080.QC.jpg
272554727340999e61b5d18b0aed2282
52cbee41654f336f7d5d61869345f9c81e165648
F20110114_AACSQK toro_e_Page_083.tif
f1e68e4c8f79c63acf8ef451ec423c66
3b52c1805d59a0f23bd1c9969750f0cf9dc945b9
71310 F20110114_AACSPX toro_e_Page_087.jpg
90e02f8b14930fb8786d2d86062e38a3
c3cdbf369d9dc208469c579ea45de45344b875c0
2495 F20110114_AACSRA toro_e_Page_092.txt
dd5985ad07020ddf93619351342a7fd0
3020f1f7edde3d09b9504e170bdd838aed2b2b0f
3378 F20110114_AACSQL toro_e_Page_003.QC.jpg
9c8aba4f02dc92dff7d97741479e89dd
410e8e0fea7f029d2ccb1d585c0ab8d874d32fe8
13696 F20110114_AACSPY toro_e_Page_009.QC.jpg
0865cb55508cac06f9e17d81e0289653
9be25ef01dfd6437512bf1502bd44d9e0ee0a3e8
22102 F20110114_AACSRB toro_e_Page_077.QC.jpg
a2014808eb586eef2c64dfd055272b5a
9446554fee4f93ca128d9dc3dd13b3d5d42a8e3d
27486 F20110114_AACSQM toro_e_Page_144.jpg
0dfe5a88de9dbfbc65f948806a00eef0
fa6c3c008cd4602dfc3d5afec7eb04fd1c3df78a
60611 F20110114_AACSPZ toro_e_Page_105.jpg
bc8fc63eda3421d05e93355e269d646a
cbdca31608d9385b08eed4f57fc14f4a9aeaf7cd
45721 F20110114_AACSRC toro_e_Page_013.pro
45ca6e684f438fd525238414ea41e82a
5ce708c6a539605802651487c522fb2f08be1f12
33884 F20110114_AACSQN toro_e_Page_071.pro
929652ea61e8c7c591f4e09d7235d341
6b4beb43f3ee2d3d34bb04634fafc4b7cc407caa
48695 F20110114_AACSRD toro_e_Page_076.pro
3fbe86129ba4b077001ecd09dab9d0e7
0c54d64c522e2b115f4b39251657d1bfb32dd231
21642 F20110114_AACSQO toro_e_Page_093.QC.jpg
908cb7deebe916eb2e84cf83f43503e4
d5309f7043022ddbc36fcee7d7d063a9f134634d
2003 F20110114_AACSRE toro_e_Page_079.txt
f329b2b3affbfc36f3ca1f3440871446
b233e155007f727ae44e95abe046feb0fbcf3f26
123200 F20110114_AACSQP toro_e_Page_031.jp2
f70edb15d564efda2032197dc264d6f3
4a93a563ad9d49a282cf6ab128440198f7c1d25f
67103 F20110114_AACSRF toro_e_Page_098.jpg
e04da12845227ad411d729c92a0926a3
ed185d9aea6336dae7afd69fce0d80694dce3655
23934 F20110114_AACSQQ toro_e_Page_020.QC.jpg
849b4ff4291662193da550261959d85d
e1d93515bb6b93ea70df7410b3dab4232ddc11fa
127 F20110114_AACSRG toro_e_Page_003.txt
ab1d772ae604186f5acd2a284a8361f5
9f63b8c63f5c960290cf0c912e83289aeda673f0
17221 F20110114_AACSQR toro_e_Page_120.QC.jpg
98e2cdb43bc9f8c598250f0519a8ba54
c6775f29a51ca7d61aa362706f9a7f5d11cef7c3
56373 F20110114_AACSRH toro_e_Page_030.pro
13d302b214a9eadf31e71986d0d2bd28
f497fdd12a0f373719d354c8b97a4848614fa47b
106078 F20110114_AACSQS toro_e_Page_138.jpg
f44bfe04f28f36de98196a356bd446cc
1313c1a2bfc8843f1c72b2907b1e18fef7c743f2
6073 F20110114_AACSRI toro_e_Page_068thm.jpg
1b17c1a72d58635e392ea0328e3c17bf
34da236662875eb4d60b1b5c13135604ca524b5f
6341 F20110114_AACSQT toro_e_Page_115thm.jpg
2c10e6e60358c0fb4cc1f6efd29f58d0
8b3c573aa5ac6e4a1e945697aefa6aaa0b7b5a68
F20110114_AACSRJ toro_e_Page_058.tif
04a786bcfa910c0dd0aa99c1ba10c09b
7edacd6192719e1d988d2bb7419c2bde6b863b95
107341 F20110114_AACSQU toro_e_Page_037.jp2
f7e554ab6c6ec00aa21d2f8a5e1a1e28
b52d752e1156591cbe0397b5269886d387103a29
44085 F20110114_AACSQV toro_e_Page_132.jpg
f178d96c92d9b5df1eb602b1d0d6477a
6d3065f3e363f94c6f3326d360dee6cbc6c7706c
F20110114_AACSRK toro_e_Page_094.tif
8758e78f6ec8de5c1674acbc0fd6c695
69b7cbe77628f17c4baaf9e50c3f7129d91eddaa
44560 F20110114_AACSQW toro_e_Page_095.pro
bace3474b18d36f6e300d709c44f1391
e11f0f27630e3f90aa3b1b987774ea4ee0644f80
59524 F20110114_AACSSA toro_e_Page_004.jpg
ff85131232a709c4dc927224a1889535
de701ec5e3d53c7782bc2d5cac0ba453c6dd7cc4
109125 F20110114_AACSRL toro_e_Page_006.pro
6c2fcb117fdb464e4f984a738189a279
01766db5a5746106fdd648ff5e4461e69bfb94d1
1245 F20110114_AACSQX toro_e_Page_129.txt
60d45933fc678ba20b0cd395ffe74cee
9491e3fd9f0bc75c5909d7b49c167cdab834659e
70295 F20110114_AACSSB toro_e_Page_005.jpg
6d67869d44111677dff0051a151c61cf
985bca430ca57f6d75009b1f4794dfdd5ff50453
102677 F20110114_AACSRM toro_e_Page_018.jp2
914fc47b80e8713eedbccb74020a7ca8
d8c182ec62f32209ccfe76172bc5f7d942df903c
6511 F20110114_AACSQY toro_e_Page_050thm.jpg
8d99ea0358bc141445df73f84114856a
a5f766f79b4a7ebdb1f8ef26c31b52ca3824ba48
89619 F20110114_AACSSC toro_e_Page_006.jpg
9fbff568f8cfff39fb70c08d9d1b5862
374f85f2091efabc988648e2a7e923d713069ff3
F20110114_AACSRN toro_e_Page_129.tif
788e712cdfeb3b164f6873a1d66d1e1b
c896f9601d90c12e071bc89bd1d00acd1d7fb2f6
6288 F20110114_AACSQZ toro_e_Page_043thm.jpg
b6a24c2616c8adaa46d69a82dcffeb61
d31b49557e3234d62f6c45986715d34571b50b7a
74966 F20110114_AACSSD toro_e_Page_008.jpg
005b014fd151fde5091b28ff4329b22c
8eb80c2303a17bab7c95940e0764f5b18531d851
1648 F20110114_AACSRO toro_e_Page_125.txt
25905ea3761dc6efcc9980a7c53cbdc1
558f72532e13bf97b558ccaf5bfc35dde4308ffd
60797 F20110114_AACSSE toro_e_Page_010.jpg
d7376c05f74ec7da24a8ff14a07b96a2
8e79d26a6b13cc254b23a5d4756ce4abd677d558
6530 F20110114_AACSRP toro_e_Page_039thm.jpg
41f27e29b0fd268d1025719040b4a535
83bf7a48625704fac6673123b85e63e6d04dc8d9
62802 F20110114_AACSSF toro_e_Page_012.jpg
3bea63112722413adc64eaf1204fe95a
434c57c64d2fb8c6e8ef322494e483daff22bd52
4431 F20110114_AACSRQ toro_e_Page_124thm.jpg
5d7ab3e7aa726b508b2031d8dcd39f51
86736a54bfee15d0c913b5074113f9ef048edb6a
74958 F20110114_AACSSG toro_e_Page_015.jpg
ea58f12427bac508f5c9758ee7c4b3d7
92ad556c48165cd17b0e12eceff0b2aa9dec778e
50838 F20110114_AACSRR toro_e_Page_055.pro
11132eaf455b9cc0a96dabf89997bb68
adb4ea68abcd3a788e9fb21c8301d2849a47a31b
68166 F20110114_AACSSH toro_e_Page_018.jpg
3741ef58acf8405676b126d7e443aeae
ad9203d537f3732025c45f5f19e02eb6730122bd
23472 F20110114_AACSRS toro_e_Page_041.QC.jpg
0c9da076cd63810560fa8fb91c8e3452
41eb3726f50dee4a264151a0fbde406a5646dbcc
72398 F20110114_AACSSI toro_e_Page_020.jpg
a258e33c9fc0d67951568d5f0ba45c47
5ef8634da5a285f2f5ae78b6f68ccf59bd1d76b1
2054 F20110114_AACSRT toro_e_Page_060.txt
aaa00b16418137f8af27af8dea9fd4e9
ff8be11dd786bc41ad18f248abdd36bde6cc55c6
69626 F20110114_AACSSJ toro_e_Page_022.jpg
236c3177a00b18ea45e9d42843b4f76f
95d1f00159169f9893b49f705ceddbcbb8f48014
167115 F20110114_AACSRU UFE0007521_00001.mets
01e4e9d0c1fddc5a8cb66fcd18811c42
bee62991c8f65ae4a4d40e8bee7eca6dd00dec1c
72249 F20110114_AACSSK toro_e_Page_023.jpg
d87a08c1e08ba76556836009c18f3edb
d88724ad713edd2c8130322bf6ab3afff5bd199e
70566 F20110114_AACSSL toro_e_Page_024.jpg
47a2bd1ee55d87b597d2016c0dc3b2ce
617654e5eccda15f3f9ad91048018ec5a0fb8975
27233 F20110114_AACSRX toro_e_Page_001.jpg
1badc8e3c7c3815101f2962bece11c7d
d96bd55e1b45d297243c8be19df474599244e278
69997 F20110114_AACSTA toro_e_Page_047.jpg
fd4e59a9f7ffe6f2c553db93dd7d3098
57581de48c6b30c3bd35247ddad4c775e69640ac
68221 F20110114_AACSSM toro_e_Page_025.jpg
ea119ccc38fb391b739e7ffa1e2f4b74
bd4e33c6ba160f62e67782b9cd6850c484e5f5ab
10618 F20110114_AACSRY toro_e_Page_002.jpg
0cc6ed701b216597437368d07a4c96be
4d2b21903475d4c0f69a0afd6a9096a87aeb6ddd
73553 F20110114_AACSTB toro_e_Page_048.jpg
4a05729007b4167b73dd6fe4d2efe260
9b6f19b13e02dbd53ffdbe14730fad3aa43a96ed
76380 F20110114_AACSSN toro_e_Page_026.jpg
caee8569ee2c2973dabf99300687a0a7
4c24fe4c91edf42a39d011ec154bf185ce3fc34e
11322 F20110114_AACSRZ toro_e_Page_003.jpg
277723d4c21efb3f7a0e2cf4a0ce0f19
c4e5b1fa8bbb3250e4fe87998df2791b4b13f8cd
71530 F20110114_AACSTC toro_e_Page_049.jpg
d5d435f151a5ef73c7ad49a82b0c29d8
024575588a9ae8e74d90030782635578629bded6
58625 F20110114_AACSSO toro_e_Page_027.jpg
4410d00542512724d47459a34e698cfc
6e885edaad9977516e6545ae285d5d28e4e1b428
72475 F20110114_AACSTD toro_e_Page_050.jpg
89065a817f0a9dc2fd01b2e4fdf573ef
395ed921130cc1d0e6000708c9f662932d3e428e
60990 F20110114_AACSSP toro_e_Page_028.jpg
9d54241ef76cd745f0baeb76ad1c451f
89209ec48301a6e6c17ebb935f1b96653cee8486
73729 F20110114_AACSTE toro_e_Page_052.jpg
c8acd31744302848cab9e7ed51b9fbdc
292046d20426eb231ac52271b1488271d2ce8a2e
72309 F20110114_AACSSQ toro_e_Page_032.jpg
349b936f43b55a5661bdda81600cc413
9e79c7611519b242ebfd6cf769a2655f3f9af811
78574 F20110114_AACSTF toro_e_Page_053.jpg
e8cd768075bd3cbed88c9fafe608d036
ffd705779477bffc0c094a33044d9a426f444a7b
61241 F20110114_AACSSR toro_e_Page_035.jpg
20e786bca0804133beb099fa89e767d9
d3656e1271b69df548c13614acd7ad24007dc7ae
72881 F20110114_AACSTG toro_e_Page_055.jpg
9be1e6eb3b968fe7e4e7e72e90d90294
ce6ba6b5da08a4838c55cab8e4f5f63678332503
72290 F20110114_AACSSS toro_e_Page_036.jpg
ebe954a5608698904349ff89fcd84f18
2c15d2b9e3b6106ed745d10ccd9fa648edc6377b
73068 F20110114_AACSTH toro_e_Page_057.jpg
48d0d25dea0f027854857a86596d19df
ffb0c518d1467c5a060553dc55b9fea1205195ba
70786 F20110114_AACSST toro_e_Page_037.jpg
a95af41b0adf42bee74cc798c3ce28ee
b4ad2c20917322d3e8c02527a17dc55bc0bed75b
69995 F20110114_AACSTI toro_e_Page_058.jpg
dd80f30e98bdc8f4b1a32469c0b1b3f8
ef079d17a738b920386566d63a1ab586dd120ad0
72849 F20110114_AACSSU toro_e_Page_039.jpg
3415e4c7357f9117f53dd9b2020f4194
b7883d90419d7ee3f801580e12d1c6a2f1ed3067
70265 F20110114_AACSTJ toro_e_Page_061.jpg
330fdf0db7edc717c306e161f651926e
afd2f77bc95d862297cb5870343a4ef73d40919d
76923 F20110114_AACSSV toro_e_Page_040.jpg
7503fcb8b85d8bfa15c399a31478a44a
fe612546a484094a9b22b4044e49d8dc8507a5de
77722 F20110114_AACSTK toro_e_Page_064.jpg
8c77acdc49b487a1fc8c95dfdb23cb4e
ced82d32321dab05dfba7444f1669edd5f1a576b
71382 F20110114_AACSSW toro_e_Page_041.jpg
a6ab326169a0e3bafa4b7f116211d976
4cc55b7f14b49572cadb4d968e6764be1157be10
71978 F20110114_AACSTL toro_e_Page_065.jpg
17104cd680fd717144eedd83042496e8
eba7c5e89551d570c053d750c614d069d2cb5e05
74938 F20110114_AACSSX toro_e_Page_042.jpg
19c69c4d49787cdc78a073a77064aa9e
e1495ddcc2b6f5a2b8f17c95dfcf6fce77c1b1e4
65020 F20110114_AACSUA toro_e_Page_095.jpg
6afb267308d1eae77988faea271945c0
a7e011e3f6ae8ef176e1682fffb229b5d603c114
70246 F20110114_AACSSY toro_e_Page_043.jpg
4f63a82fe7dc9d50d32b34f6446bc83c
002322cd78c103c61d44cd90f5e1ac9e770c68c6
73869 F20110114_AACSUB toro_e_Page_096.jpg
182871f9586dec400c284eb89b9a157f
3ecef02a5a96a05046b731b90aa18d2728be449f
69487 F20110114_AACSTM toro_e_Page_067.jpg
ec21ad324b98b0608c17626fc296bad2
6d29b3c76e51fc79d5a3f55aa22f8e60dcda7d9a



PAGE 1

PERCEPTIONS OF LIVESTOCK EXTEN SION EDUCATION DELIVERY AND GLOBALIZATION EFFECTS AMONG DAIRY FARMERS IN THE NORTH COAST OF HONDURAS By ELENA MARIA TORO ALFARO A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2004

PAGE 2

Copyright 2004 by Elena Mara Toro Alfaro

PAGE 3

This thesis is dedicated to my parents, Eduardo and Dilcia Toro.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost I express my gratitude to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, for his immense love, help and fidelity. I give him the honor and the glory in this journey. I would like to thank the members of my supervisory committee (Dr. Nick Place, Dr. Tracy Irani and Dr. Roger Natzke) for allowing me the opportunity to work with them, for their insightful contributions to my professional development, and for their kindness and support. I am especially grateful to my supervisory committee chair (Dr. Nick Place), for his guidance, encouragement, and patience. I will always appreciate the Godly example he set in my life. I am also indebted to Dr. Ed Osborne and the faculty in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication for funding my graduate studies through the Space Agriculture in the Classroom Grant, and for all their support and encouragement. I extend thanks to the Agricultural Education and Communication Department staff for their help and kindness. Furthermore I want to express deep gratitude to Dr. Marta Hartmann and James Umphrey. In addition, I am grateful to all my graduate colleagues. I thank my friends Gina Canales and Kelly Jimenez for all the memories and friendship. I wish them all the best! I express gratitude to my pastors Ileana and Heriberto Caizares for their love, guidance and words of wisdom. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, sisters, grandparents, family, and friends for their love and undying support from a distance. iv

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................viii ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Background of Study....................................................................................................1 Milk Production in Honduras.......................................................................................1 Milk Marketing.............................................................................................................3 Support Services Available to the Dairy Industry........................................................3 Directorate of Agricultural Science and Technology (DICTA)............................4 Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs).............................................................5 Farmer Associations..............................................................................................6 Recent Events Affecting the Dairy Industry of Honduras............................................6 Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)....................................................8 Need for the Study........................................................................................................9 Statement of the Problem............................................................................................11 Purpose and Objectives...............................................................................................13 Limitations of the Study.............................................................................................14 Significance of the Problem........................................................................................14 Definitions..................................................................................................................15 Summary.....................................................................................................................16 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................17 Extension in the Development of the Agricultural and Livestock Sectors.................17 Factors that Affect the Performance of Extension......................................................21 Approaches to Extension Services..............................................................................23 Public..........................................................................................................................24 Private.........................................................................................................................24 Public Extension..................................................................................................25 Training and visit extension (T&V).............................................................28 Decentralization...........................................................................................30 v

PAGE 6

Privatized Extension............................................................................................33 Farmer-Led Extension.........................................................................................34 Farmer-to-farmer extension..........................................................................36 Farmer field schools.....................................................................................38 The problem census/problem solving (PC/PS) approach.............................40 The NGO-government collaboration...........................................................40 Delivery of Livestock Services...................................................................................44 Importance and Types of Needs Assessments............................................................46 Education in Rural Areas............................................................................................49 Principles of Adult Education.....................................................................................50 Overview of Delivery Methods Used in Extension....................................................52 Organization and Development of Farmer Groups....................................................55 Leadership Development............................................................................................57 Conclusion..................................................................................................................60 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................61 Research Design.........................................................................................................62 Populations.................................................................................................................63 Instrumentation...........................................................................................................65 Data Collection Procedures........................................................................................68 Data Analysis..............................................................................................................69 Summary.....................................................................................................................70 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................72 Demographics.............................................................................................................72 Background Information.....................................................................................72 Farm Characteristics............................................................................................75 Objective 1..................................................................................................................78 Objective 2..................................................................................................................84 Objective 3..................................................................................................................85 Objective 4..................................................................................................................87 Felt Needs............................................................................................................87 Ascribed Needs.....................................................................................................90 Objective 5..................................................................................................................91 Summary.....................................................................................................................93 5 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION....94 Discussion of Key Findings........................................................................................94 Objective 1...........................................................................................................94 Objectives 2 and 3...............................................................................................99 Objective 4.........................................................................................................101 Objective 5.........................................................................................................104 Conclusions...............................................................................................................105 Recommendations.....................................................................................................106 vi

PAGE 7

Future Research Needed...........................................................................................107 Summary...................................................................................................................107 APPENDIX A STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR FARMERS ......................................108 B STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR INPUT SUPPLIERS .......................118 C STRUCTURED INTERVIEW FOR FARMER ASSOCIATIONS REPRESENTATIVES..............................................................................................121 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................125 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................134 vii

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2-1. Extension Market Reform Strategies........................................................................24 2-2. Extension Non-Market Reform Strategies...............................................................25 2-3. Characteristics of Pedagogy and Andragogy............................................................51 2-4. Delivery methods used in extension services...........................................................54 4-1. Distribution of New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farmers by Gender (n=41).......73 4-2. Educational Background of New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farmers................73 4-3. Years Involved in Milk Production of New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farmers..........................................................................................................74 4-4. Distribution of Family Members Working Part or Full-Time on the Farm..............74 4-5. Distribution of Permanent Workers per Farm in New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farms............................................................................................75 4-6. Educational Background of Farm Workers..............................................................75 4-7. Characteristics of New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farms...................................76 4-8. Average Pasture Area (acres) on New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farms...........76 4-9. Average Daily Milk Production and Number of Cows in Milk per Farm......................................................................................................77 4-10. Composition of Breeds Among New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farms.............77 4-11. Frequency and Percentage of Adoption of Management Practices in New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farms................................................................78 4-12. Frequency and Percentage of Farmers Who Have Participated in Public and/or Private Extension Programs.....................................................................................79 4-13. Top Three Sources of Information used by New CREL, Old CREL and Large farmers......................................................................................................................80 viii

PAGE 9

4-14. Farmers Perceptions of the Quality of Support Services..........................................81 4-15. Additional Support Services Needed According to Farmers....................................82 4-16. Distribution of the Frequency and Percentage of Attendees to Extension Programs.............................................................................................83 4-17. Percentage of Farms That Send Farm Workers to Training Programs and Reasons for the Lack of Attendance at Programs in New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farms.......................................................................................................84 4-18. Educational Delivery Methods Used by Providers...................................................85 4-19. Farmers Preferences Regarding Educational Delivery Methods..............................86 4-20. Ranking of Training Priorities of New, Old and Large Farmers..............................89 4-21. Frequency and Percentage of Farmers Belonging to Farmer Associations and Perceived Benefits of Membership by Farmers.......................................................91 4-22. Farmers Understanding and Perceptions of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)...............................................................................................93 ix

PAGE 10

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science PERCEPTIONS OF LIVESTOCK EXTENSION EDUCATION DELIVERY AND GLOBALIZATION EFFECTS AMONG DAIRY FARMERS IN THE NORTH COAST OF HONDURAS By Elena Mara Toro Alfaro December 2004 Chair: Nick Place Major Department: Agricultural Education and Communication The main purpose of our study was to determine the perceptions of dairy farmers as to extensions educational delivery and with respect to globalization effects in the north coast of Honduras. The design for our study was descriptive research. Structured interview guides were developed for farmers, service providers, and farmer association board members located in the north coast of Honduras. Two major groups of farmers were studied. The first group was made up of 41 members of 20 Centros de Recoleccin y Enfriamiento de Leche (CREL). CRELs are farmer-owned milk collection and cooling centers located along the north coast of Honduras. A stratified sample based on location and length of operation of the CREL was used to select CRELs. The second major group of farmers was made of 10 large farmers selected based on the leadership they provide to the dairy industry; they had no affiliation to CRELs. Results indicated that dairy farmers in the North Coast of Honduras have limited access to formal extension services. Most of x

PAGE 11

the farmers had been exposed to sporadic, short-term technical interventions that do not include follow-up activities. As a result, service providers such as concentrate and veterinary supply companies offer educational programs on a regular basis. Farmer associations encourage and sponsor these programs but their quality is extremely variable. CREL farmers in general have positive attitudes toward extension and are satisfied with existing support services. Nonetheless, CREL farmers had difficulty expressing their needs and envisioning extensions benefits. Informal networks similar to farmer-to-farmer extension have emerged among CRELs as a result of the lack of extension. On the other hand, large farmers see a need for extension but believe there are major obstacles for its development. Large farmers believe the national extension services are not responsive to their needs; and expressed their need for specialized services. Both CREL and large farmers had little understanding of the potential implications of free trade agreements. Consequently, most farmers see treaties as a negative event that could seriously threaten the existence of the Honduran dairy industry. The most common extension delivery methods used by nonformal education providers are one-day seminars, result demonstrations, field days and farm visits. More-educated farmers prefer participating in programs where both foundational theory and hands-on and applicable practice are used to deliver new knowledge. Less-educated farmers prefer hands-on and experiential-learning delivery methods only. Long-term educational needs for dairy farmers are not limited to technical aspects of milk production. Finally, leadership training and organizational development are also key areas that must be targeted in CRELs and farmer associations. xi

PAGE 12

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background of Study Our study addressed the field of extension education services in the dairy industry of Honduras. Nonformal education programs on milk production are offered by extension and other providers (such as input suppliers and farmer associations). Using structured interview guides, we examined farmers perceptions about extension education programs available in four geographic areas in the north coast of Honduras. Our study sought to determine the most appropriate methods for delivering educational programs to stakeholders in the dairy industry. We also assessed farmers perceptions about the implications of free trade agreements being negotiated by the Honduran government at the time of our study. Felt and ascribed needs of farmers were also documented. Milk Production in Honduras Honduras is the second largest milk producer in Central America. According to FAOSTAT (2004), 597,500 metric tons of milk where produced in 2003 making it the countrys second most important agricultural commodity after coffee. The dominant production system is dual-purpose (85%) cattle production, where cows are milked by hand once a day. The genetic base in this production system is Bos indicus (mainly Brahman) and crossbred with Bos taurus breeds (usually Holstein or Brown Swiss). The most abundant feed resources are native forages and crop residues, but their quality and quantity is low. Consequently, milk productivity is also low (1,700 to 1980 # milk/lactation). Another constraint is that forage supply is related to availability of rains. 1

PAGE 13

2 During the 6-month dry season, the quantity of forage available is minimal, especially grasses. This causes milk production to drop sharply compared to the rainy season when there is an abundance of green pastures (Holmann, 2001). Milk production during the dry season is about 40% lower compared to the rainy season (Argel 1999). In contrast, in the humid tropics, the lack of forage occurs during the rainy season due to excessive rainfall, lack of sunlight (clouds), and over-saturation of water in the soils. Overall, the industry there has been characterized by low milk productivity, and the average daily milk production per cow is 8.0 lb (INE, 2002). According to the IV Censo Nacional Agropecuario in 1993 and subsequent estimations of the Instituto Nacional de Estadstica (INE,1993), approximately 85,000 dairy farmers nationwide are distributed in 5 geographical areas: northeast, northwest, central, southeast, and southern (Jara Almonte, 1999). However, experts in the field believe that the number of dairy farms has decreased instead of remaining constant in the last decade because of natural disasters like hurricane Mitch and the difficulties small farmers face in marketing milk. Dairy farming in Honduras is very labor-intensive (LSU Ag Center, 2002). The dairy industry employs approximately 300,000 people living in rural areas, which accounts for nearly 35% of the economically active population of the agriculture-and-livestock sector of Honduras (IICA, 2003). In turn, milk production has considerable importance in the economy of the country, as a source of employment and also as a major food supply, as a wealth generator, and for its contributions to the agro-industrial sector (INE, 2002).

PAGE 14

3 Milk Marketing Milk in Honduras is marketed to two types of processors: the industrial circuit and the artisan circuit. The industrial circuit collects and markets about 25% of the milk produced in Honduras (Umaa, 1998). Honduras has 5 industrial milk plants. The industrial circuit is also known as the formal sector, because milk is pasteurized and dairy products are usually sold in packaged form under reasonably good-quality standards. Industrial plants usually buy milk from farmers who produce good quality milk. The milk price paid to farmers by industrial plants is highest (about $0.26 to $0.32/kg), and it is constant throughout the year. However, this price is obtained by less than 5% of dairy farms because plants require milk to be cooled in order to obtain a product of higher hygienic quality; and farms must be located along roads with easy access throughout the year (Argel, 1999). The remaining 75 to 80% of the milk is marketed by the artisan circuit, which is mainly constituted by small-scale rural cheese factories that do not pasteurize milk. Artisan production is also known as the informal sector because this small family-type of enterprise does not pay taxes. The milk price paid to farmers in the informal sector is generally at least 20% lower than the price paid by the formal sector because it is collected as hand-milked warm milk (i.e., not cooled) and thus, its quality is lower and it has a shorter shelf life (Holmann, 2001). Support Services Available to the Dairy Industry In the past half-century, a number of rural-development organizations have emerged in Honduras. These include state agriculture institutions, farmers organizations, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Agricultural institutions and projects that have attempted to serve rural-development needs have been composed

PAGE 15

4 of a variety of national, international, public, and private institutions. However, projects were deficient in terms of stakeholder input, and were designed and conducted with limited farmer participation. These projects made extensive use of outside experts, and were constituted primarily with an agricultural focus. The underlying assumption was that if agricultural productivity could be increased, then rural-development would take place (Carrasco & Acker, 2003). Services available to dairy farmers have also been limited by the lack of permanent extension-service providers in the most important production areas and by the lack of expertise in the providers. Directorate of Agricultural Science and Technology (DICTA) As a result of the Modernization Law for the Agricultural Sector in Honduras (passed in 1992), the Agricultural Technology Generation and Transfer System (GTTA in Spanish) was radically reformed, and the Directorate of Agricultural Science and Technology (DICTA in Spanish) was created. DICTA is a decentralized entity, under the Secretariat of Agriculture and Livestock (SAG in Spanish). DICTAs main functions include privatizing services for generating and transferring agricultural technology, and regulating the market for these services. In Honduras, government institutions have provided extension services free to farmers for the last 40 years. Unfortunately, this has led to serious sustainability problems and low-quality services, lack of response to farmers needs, and costly programs (Hermosilla & Macas, 2002). Currently DICTA offers services to small-scale commercial farmers through contracts (using donor and government funds) with private-sector service providers such as domestic consulting firms, NGOs, or individuals. The contracts are tripartite. Farmers, service providers, and a government representative (in this case, the office of Modernization of Agricultural Technology Services Project, or PROMOSTA) sign the

PAGE 16

5 contract/agreement, which requires that specific services to the farmers organization be provided in exchange for payment. The payment to the service provider is a combination of funds from a grant fund and farmers contributions. Farmers contributions are made on a gradually increasing scale, with the annual contribution increasing from 10 to 25% over 3 years. In addition to the agricultural sectors modernization, the National System of Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer (SNITTA in Spanish) was formed. This group organizes and promotes the activities of the Agricultural Technology and Transfer System (GTTA in spanish). SNITTA was designated to coordinate the actions of the public and private sectors and provide services for the generation and transfer of agricultural technology, allowing the private sector and farmers to participate more fully in the planning stage of programs (Hermosilla & Macas, 2002). DICTA has six regional offices in the country: (1) Central-western, (2) Northeast, (3) Northwest, (4) Southern, (5) Central-eastern and (6) North coast. Each regional office is responsible for coordinating and diffusing technology-transfer systems and for supervising and evaluating private firms and consultants (DICTA, 2004). Other than DICTA there are no other permanent extension service providers in Honduras. Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) Approximately 4,000 NGOs are registered in Honduras. However, it was not until recent years that NGOs have come to play a major role in the dairy industry. Despite the existence of a variety of NGO networks and the Association of Non-governmental Organizations (ASONOG), as well as eighteen NGO networks, the NGO community is relatively fragmented, lacking coordination and cooperation among different sectors including government and other institutions, such as universities. There is general

PAGE 17

6 consensus among the NGO community that competition for project funds took precedence over research and learning. International donors contribute the majority of financial and other resources to NGOs (Meltzer, 2001). Farmer Associations Farmer associations represent farmers interests at the national level and have proven to be very influential in the acquisition of external funds for extension programs, and this is most prevalent in the north coast of Honduras. Nevertheless, farmer associations have not been characterized for offering services that can lead to improving the conditions of farmers through educational programs or any other type of assistance. Most associations have very limited impact on their affiliates and although many are concerned with issues of food security, land reform, access to markets and technology, persistent divisions within farmer associations and other organizations continue to weaken their intentions. At the governmental level the sector remains characterized by division due to distinct political affiliations (Carrasco & Acker, 2003). Political favoritism is a major inhibitor of the development of the sector. Recent Events Affecting the Dairy Industry of Honduras During the last decade, a series of events have affected the dairy industry of Honduras. Hurricane Mitch struck Honduras in November of 1998 causing serious damage to the cattle industry. Some 78,000 hectares of grazing land were destroyed. Additionally, about 30,000 dairy cows were lost and this accounted for approximately 15% of the stock in the country (IADB, 2002). In response to the disaster, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) allocated resources to revitalize the rural economies affected by hurricane Mitch in Honduras. Within the dairy sector it aimed to improve dairy farms at two levels: technical aspects of milk production and

PAGE 18

7 farmer organization, that would lead to improvement of milk quality and marketing opportunities. As a result of these resources, the Dairy Enterprise Initiative (DEI) directed by Land OLakes International Development organized initially 13 groups of dairy producers in order to establish farmer-owned milk cooling and collection centers known as Centros de Recoleccin y Enfriamiento de Leche (CREL) during 2000 and 2001. CRELs offer small producers several opportunities including: Access to premiums paid by the industrial circuit for cooled milk and volume. Communication and networking with other farmers. Development of capacity to be organized, for sharing power and decision-making. However, due to negative experiences in the past, farmers in Honduras had been reluctant to form cooperatives or farmer groups, especially if money was involved. Nonetheless, the initial 13 CRELs started operations in late 2001. On average each CREL had between 15 and 20 small producers. Current production data show that typically, dairy farmers in Honduras are very small, the daily average is 8 # of milk, and 80% of LEYDE suppliers (the largest processing plant in the north coast of Honduras) produce 176 # or less per day (O. Javier, personal communication, June 24 th 2003). The Dairy Enterprise Initiative provided initial training and one cooling tank per CREL. These CRELs were able to negotiate higher prices and reach commitment from processing plants in the industrial circuit that they would buy all milk produced by the CREL as long as milk quality was maintained. The contracts signed with the initial 13 CRELs represented an additional $0.04 to $0.06 per pound of milk. These contracts represented a breakthrough marketing opportunity for CREL members.

PAGE 19

8 In early 2002, the Honduran Government received requests from farmers in the departments of Coln, Yoro and Atlntida in the north coast of Honduras to finance 48 additional CRELs because they realized the advantages CRELs offered. The National Office of Sustained Rural Development (DINADERS) from the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock financed the construction of the 48 new centers, and by the summer of 2003 most of the centers had been built. However, most of the new centers did not start operating because processing plants in the industrial circuit were not willing to buy milk under the same conditions negotiated with CRELs in 2000 and 2001. Unfortunately, training opportunities and support to non-operating CRELs has been limited to basic training on improving milking procedures and milk quality from the Honduran Dairy Enterprise program. Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) The U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement concluded negotiations in December 2003. It is the most recent free trade agreement negotiated by Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and the United States. Costa Rica finalized its participation on the treaty in January 2004 while the Dominican Republic was integrated to the treaty on March of the same year. The CAFTA will not only liberalize bilateral trade between the United States and the region, but also will further integration efforts among the countries of Central America, removing barriers to trade and investment in the region by U.S. companies (USTR, 2004). The CAFTA will require the countries of Central America to undertake needed reforms to alleviate many of the systemic problems noted below in areas including customs administration; protection of intellectual property rights; services, investment, and financial services market access and protection;

PAGE 20

9 government procurements; sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) barriers and other non-tariff barriers (USTR, 2004). The Government of Honduras, farm groups, and importers have agreed to a quasi-tariff-rate quota in which prices remains in effect until local grain supplies are exhausted, after which a 1% duty is applied to imports. Another quasi-tariff-rate quota system is in place for imports of rice. The United States has strongly opposed the Honduran policies on these grains as limiting access for U.S. agricultural products. When implemented, the CAFTA will lead to the elimination of this system. Tariffs on most grains and flour will be eliminated within 15 years after the agreement takes effect, except for rice tariffs, which will be phased out over 18 years. Under the CAFTA, textiles and apparel will be duty-free and quota-free immediately, if they meet the Agreements rule of origin, promoting new opportunities for U.S. and Central American fiber, yarn, fabric and apparel manufacturing. The CAFTA will eliminate tariffs on virtually all agricultural products within a maximum of fifteen years, except for dairy that will take place in 20 years and poultry in 18 (F. Fiallos, personal communication, June, 2004). Need for the Study The significant contributions of the dairy industry to the Honduran economy have been studied by different authors (Galetto, 1996; Merino & Avila, 2000, LSU AgCenter, 2002 & IICA, 2003). Through a review of the literature and a series of informal interviews with major actors of the sector, it has been found that despite its importance it has not been studied to as great an extent within the context of extension education. It is widely understood that dairy farmers in Honduras have had limited access to extension services. In Honduras, as in many developing countries, it has become increasingly evident that as DICTA has grown in size and complexity, it has drifted away

PAGE 21

10 from farmer clientele. The lack of relevance of programs to local needs and the limited interest from farmers to participate provides clear evidence of the problem. Although major changes have taken place at the national level to increase farmers participation in extension program planning and development, such as the Law of Modernization of the Agricultural Sector in 1992, there is little evidence that farmers needs are being targeted and met accordingly. In their study, LSU Ag Center (2002) identified several critical needs of dairy farmers in Honduras as perceived by the different members of the industry. Two of the six recommendations made by the authors related to the provision of extension services, included: improving quality of milk and dairy products through the implementation of educational programs, and the creation of an educational program for dairy entrepreneurs to improve managerial skills. Therefore, one could infer about the need for additional training and the potential for extension services in the dairy sector of Honduras. Secondly, limited information is available about potential extension clientele. The lack of information at the grassroots level constitutes a major constraint for proper extension planning especially in this time of rapid change. Even the demographics about the sector have not been updated in a timely manner. The most recent livestock census in Honduras took place in 1993. Results from this census along with data from the Encuesta Agrcola Nacional de Propsitos Mltiples (EANPM) conducted by the Instituto Nacional de Estadstica (INE) (2002) have been used in recent years to estimate changes in livestock and farmer populations; nevertheless the accuracy of this information is limited.

PAGE 22

11 Efforts to document and update databases have been undertaken by organizations like the Asociacin de Ganaderos y Agricultores de Atlntida (AGAA) who in the summer of 2003 conducted a survey among 800 of its members who are dairy producers to develop a database about dairy farms. The lack of relevant information prevented AGAA in the past of properly documenting proposals and petitions to the Honduran government and other external funding agencies. AGAA is most likely the most influential organization in the north coast of Honduras because of its over 1,100 members. Farmers perceptions of extension services have changed considerably in a relatively short time because of the demands the industrial circuit is placing on farmers as the country is preparing to enter the CAFTA. Farmers have traditionally been reluctant to improve production systems and facilities since they did not see any incentives from the market. However, in the last 2 years, farmer organizations and individual farmers are more actively seeking extension and consulting services. Farmers are being forced to implement the new regulations and meet milk quality standards. Our study took place in the north coast of Honduras, in the departments of Corts, Atlntida, Coln and Yoro in an area called Cuenca Lechera de Honduras. The importance of this area lies in the fact that although it only comprises 14% (14,118) of the dairy farms in the country, it produces 46% of milk and supplies 85% of the milk processed by the industrial circuit (INE, 1993; INE 2002). Furthermore, this is the area where the initial 13 CRELs were established. Statement of the Problem The Honduran Dairy Industry is going to experience dramatic changes in the foreseeable future. According to Umaa (1998), Honduras ranks second in milk

PAGE 23

12 production in Central America only after Costa Rica. Currently, milk production and processing in Honduras is highly inefficient and non competitive. Consequently, it could be hit the hardest by open markets since productivity is low and production costs are high (I. Matamoros, personal interview, June 2003). Furthermore, Honduran dairy farmers have not had access to extension programs that offer non-biased, research based information to face the difficulties of milk production in the tropics. According to Umali et al. (1994), the ability of the livestock sector to attain its full productive potential is influenced by the availability and quality of livestock support services. A review of secondary data and informal interviews during 2000 and 2001 revealed that most of the educational opportunities available to farmers in the north coast of Honduras come from input suppliers such as veterinary and feed companies that seek to increase sales rather than to educate farmers. Therefore, quality of such programs has been extremely variable. Moreover, it has been hard for leaders and farmers to picture the benefits of extension, especially when programs offered have come in the form of short-term technical interventions with predetermined agendas. Additionally, farmers are facing a serious of issues such as the lack of credit and financial services, lack of infrastructure, land tenure and ownership and marketing problems (LSU Ag Center, 2002). Farmers are small landholders with few exceptions, and they are poorly organized at the national level. Although farmer associations exist in virtually every major town of Honduras, their role is very limited. A particularly important segment of the dairy industry are CRELs. These centers are offering an unprecedented opportunity for small farmers to access better milk prices, to share knowledge and experiences with other farmers and to improve milk quality in the

PAGE 24

13 country. However, CRELs need the expertise and guidance from extension and visionary leaders to become sustainable units of production. The lack of extension services or the provision of services that ignore farmer needs and views could prove fatal for rural economies as CRELs are serving as a model for a large number of farmer groups across the country. The number of CRELs nationwide has grown from 13 in 2001 to 61 in 2003, and it is expected to reach 75 by the end of 2004. Based on the above, our study seeks to determine perceptions about extension services from New and Old CREL members as well as from leaders of the industry in order to provide foundational data that can be translated into practical recommendations for extension service providers. Purpose and Objectives The main purpose of our study was to determine the perceptions of three groups of dairy farmers (New CREL members, Old CREL members and large farmers) on extensions educational delivery in the northern coast of Honduras. Our study focused on CREL farmers. New CREL farmers are defined as: farmers belonging to CRELs that had recently started operations at the time of our study and Old CREL farmers as farmers belonging to CRELs that had started operations in the years 2000 and 2001. The large farmer group in our study is comprised of leaders in the areas the study was conducted. The specific objectives for the study were to Objective 1: Determine the perception of each group of farmers about extension services. Objective 2: Determine educational delivery methods used in extension programs offered to dairy farmers in Honduras. Objective 3: Determine preferred educational delivery methods for dairy farmers in Honduras. Objective 4: Determine felt and ascribed educational needs for dairy farmers in the north coast of Honduras.

PAGE 25

14 Objective 5 : Determine perceptions of dairy farmers on open market policies and its effects on the dairy industry in relation to educational needs. Limitations of the Study Due to the large number of dairy farmers in the north coast of Honduras (N=14,895) one potential limitation of the study is that it is focused on three purposive samples of dairy farmers. Thus, the findings of our study may not be generalized to the population of all dairy farmers in the north coast of Honduras. Another potential limitation includes bias potential from assessing only perceptions of importance, rather than actual knowledge of extension services from farmers. However, secondary research indicates that knowledge-related perceptions and actual knowledge can be highly correlated (Ary et al. 2002). In addition, to decrease the potential bias in the interpretation of the findings by the researcher, a group of experts in the fields of extension and milk production contributed to the analysis of primary data collected. Significance of the Problem Currently, little is formally documented as to the perceptions about extension, preferred delivery methods and about the implications of CAFTA from CREL members, leaders of the dairy industry and from Honduran dairy farmers in general. This problem is significant to extension providers, farmer associations and the Honduran government because it is important to address farmers` needs in the near future in order to strengthen rural economies. Determining the perceptions of CREL farmers and leaders of the industry will help to paint a clearer picture of the strengths and weaknesses of existing services, and it will provide foundational data to potential providers. In addition to new knowledge and strategic recommendations, an increase in the awareness of the

PAGE 26

15 importance of extension in the development of the industry are important outcomes of our study. Definitions Included are the terms and definitions that appear frequently throughout our study. Agricultural extension: A series of socially sanctioned and legitimate activities which seek to enlarge and improve the abilities of farm people to adopt more appropriate and often new practices and to adjust to changing conditions and societal needs. CRELs: Centro de recoleccin y enfriamiento de leche (CREL in Spanish). Farmer-owned milk cooling and collection centers located along the north coast of Honduras. New CREL farmers: Farmers belonging to CRELs who where either in the process of starting operations or had recently started operations at the time of our study. Old CREL farmers: Farmers belonging to CRELs who had started operations in the years 2000 and 2001. Large farmers: Farmers who were not affiliated to CRELs but where considered leaders in the same geographical areas where CRELs are located. DICTA: Directorate of Agricultural Science and Technology (DICTA in Spanish). DICTA is a decentralized entity, under the Secretariat of Agriculture and Livestock (SAG in Spanish). DICTAs main functions include the privatization of services for generating and transferring agricultural technology. NGOs: Non-governmental organizations. Farmer-led extension: Multidirectional communication process between and among extension staff and farmers. It involves the sharing, sourcing and development of knowledge and skills in order to meet farming needs and develop innovative capacity among all actors. This approach seeks to involve farmers in training other farmers and trainers, and in sharing, sourcing and transferring knowledge and skills. Adult education: It is a process whereby adults gain knowledge or skills in a set of organized activities designed to enhance their quality of life involving educators. Delivery method: Is the medium through which educational content is transmitted and human interaction occurs.

PAGE 27

16 AGAA: Asociacin de Ganaderos y Agricultores de Atlntida (AGAA in Spanish). Farmer association located in the Atlntida region. AGAS: Asociacin de Ganaderos y Agricultores de Sula (AGAS in Spanish). Farmer association located in the Sula region. SAGO: Sociedad de Agricultores y Ganaderos de Olanchito (SAGO in Spanish). Farmer association located in the Olanchito region. CAFTA: Central American Free Trade Agreement. The CAFTA is the most recent free trade agreement negotiated by Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic and the United States. Summary In summary, the dairy industry in Honduras is a very important economic activity. However, milk production and processing is highly inefficient and noncompetitive. Consequently it could be hit the hardest by open markets since productivity is low and production costs are high. In addition, the lack of adequate extension and support services has hindered the development of the industry. Based on the above, our study seeks to determine perceptions about extension services from New and Old CREL members as well as from leaders of the industry in order to provide foundational data that can be translated into practical recommendations for extension service providers, farmer associations, input suppliers and farmers regarding the delivery of extension education programs related to milk production. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the literature reviewed for our study.

PAGE 28

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW To understand the importance of Extension services for dairy farmers in Honduras and the importance of documenting farmers needs, it is important to see what the relevant literature relays on the subject. Extension in the development of the agricultural and livestock sector Factors that affect the performance of extension Approaches to extension services Delivery of livestock services Importance and types of needs assessments Education in rural areas Principles of adult education Overview of delivery methods used in extension Organization and development of farmer groups Leadership development Extension in the Development of the Agricultural and Livestock Sectors In developing countries where agriculture is the principle means of livelihood for 40 to 90% of the population (Jazairy, 1992), strengthening the ability of agriculture to compete domestically and in export markets is an important premise for an economically competitive agricultural sector. The State of Food and Agriculture Report from FAO (2000) concluded that reducing poverty and food insecurity is not simply a question of enhancing agricultural productivity and production or of generating more income. Productivity is the result of complex relations that involves not only farmers but also complex relationships. Maalouf et al. (1991) have stated that the quality, capability and performance of farmers in agriculture are fundamental indicators of the level of the agricultural sectors efficiency, productivity, development and sustainability. 17

PAGE 29

18 Furthermore, high capability and good performance in farmers are not inborn qualitiesthey are acquired. Most farmers in the developing world have a low level of formal education and extremely few have the opportunity to study agriculture in the formal school system. As observed in developed countries, it can be inferred that education is important to develop the agricultural and livestock sectors. In reality, extension services are continually important even to educated farmers, and research and learning that accompanies adoption of new technologies is especially important for the advancement of farmers with low knowledge levels (Rivera et al. 1991). According to FAO (1990) the Global Consultation on Agricultural Extension has stated that farm people who receive nonformal education through extension programs generally increase their productivity and efficiency. Still, extension resources are available to only 1 out of every 5 farmers in the developing regions of the world (Rivera, 1995). Research shows that in Africa, 2 out of every 3 farmers have no contact with public extension services; in Asia 3 out of 4; in Latin America, 6 out of 7 and 5 out of 6 in the Near East (Maalouf et al. 1991). Agricultural extension work is a significant social innovation, an important force in agricultural change, which has been created and recreated, adapted and developed over the centuries. Today, the organizations and personnel engaged in agricultural extension encompass a diverse range of socially sanctioned and legitimate activities which seek to enlarge and improve the abilities of farm people to adopt more appropriate and often new practices and to adjust to changing conditions and societal needs (Jones & Garforth, 1997).

PAGE 30

19 The services provided by extension have significant public-good attributes. It is estimated that there are at least 800,000 official extension workers worldwide, and some 80% of the worlds extension services are publicly funded and delivered by civil servants (Feder, Willett and Zijp, 2001). Universities, autonomous public organizations, and NGOs deliver about 12% of extension services, and the private sector delivers another 5% (The World Bank, 2003a). Agricultural extension responsibilities include the transferring of knowledge from researchers to farmers, advising farmers in their decision making and educating farmers on how to make better decisions, enabling farmers to clarify their own goals and possibilities, and stimulating desirable agricultural developments (Van den Ban and Hawkins, 1996). Extension is a function pursuing many different purposes: livestock development, forest use and conservation, fisheries engineering and capture, food and nutrition education, as well as well as crop development. Even in programs designed to foster agricultural crop production, extension may be concerned with providing information on other crucial issues such as food storage development, processing, farm management, and marketing (Rivera et al. 2001). In addition, the effectiveness of extension programs is key to the development of the agricultural and livestock sectors. Rivera (1997) and Swanson et al. (1997) agree that for agricultural extension to be successful there has to be at the very least a viable technology system comprising four main factors: Commitments to a purpose-specific and target-specific extension/technology policy covering those factors that directly impact the technology system, including the utilization of technology by farmers. A practical research program involving a technology development system connected to basic research innovations but devoted to applied and adaptive research. An extension/technology transfer system organized into the sub-functions of knowledge transfer and input transfer, but responding to any and all purposes, such

PAGE 31

20 as: program actions to promote sustainable agriculture, reduce non-point sources of pollution, and/or help farmers organize. Responsive feedback system that assesses technology utilization by farmers. Furthermore, John B. Claar, former INTEPAKS Director offers 10 recommendations from an organizational perspective on how to make agricultural extension successful (adapted by Rivera, 2003). These include: Develop a clear-cut mission for the organization, stating what the scope is to be, whom it has to serve, what the expected outcomes are to be, and how it will be evaluated. Take account of the constraints in the external environment: policy, markets, input supply, credits, roads and cultural factors. Access available information: research-extension linkage, farmer interaction and feedback and informal and formal lateral linkages with industry, input suppliers and others. Develop internal technical capacity within extension by increasing the formal education levels, augmenting farmer in-service education and developing and deploying technical support staff such as Subject Matter Specialists so that they can better adapt to general recommendations. Developed balanced methodology that is re-enforcing. Use mass media, personal contacts, wholesaling through other organizations or firms, farming systems research, field-testing, demonstrations and visits. Develop and implement an internal management system that provides for personnel motivation, supervision, reporting, and delegation of authority and plan of work. Deal with the human factor. Avoid or soften top down, targeted or technology centered approaches by involving farmers in problem identification and promoting interaction in setting programs and securing feedback. Budget enough funds for program operations. Ensure budget not mostly for salaries and provide mobility and teaching tools. Organize and structure the organization so that there are clear lines of authority and that the scope of the work includes relevant areas. Divest the organization of roles or functions that conflict with the primary mission, such as regulatory obligations, credit or input supply functions and administrative assignments.

PAGE 32

21 Innate in these recommendations are the notions that the success of extension lies in the strength of the linkages with research bodies and farmers, the expertise of field agents and the leadership of administrators. Factors that Affect the Performance of Extension Shifting trends in agriculture are affecting the traditional roles of agricultural extension. Numerous authors Qamar (2000), Rivera et al. (2001), Swanson et al. (2003) suggest that agricultural extension organizations in both developed and developing countries are undergoing considerable reexamination and change due to the new agriculture. This is a trend that is led by the backdrop of declining public resources, increasing corporate control over key agricultural sector components, increased competition from abroad, and new relationships among producers and between producers and end-user markets. Globalization is inextricably linked to privatization, and countries are finding themselves confronted by a new and highly competitive global market (Fresco, 2000). In view of that, the participation of farmers in these new economic relationships demands new skills and knowledge, new communication networks among like-minded producers, and the ability to identify and take advantage of emerging marketing and agro-processing opportunities. Consequently extension organizations, if they are to remain viable institutions, need to plan and deliver extension programs that can help farmers take advantage of the new opportunities to increase their income within this new agricultural economy (Swanson et al. 2003). The threats of not complying with the new roles and responsibilities are evident, the last decade witnessed an accelerated decline in the credibility of public sector extension, and unless extension grows to beyond technology transfer, and clearly articulates its role in facilitating broader changes supportive of

PAGE 33

22 evolving rural livelihoods, its ability to remain relevant in the future is extremely doubtful (Tadesse, 2003). According to Rivera (1997) at least nine exogenous forces began to impose their leverage in extension in the last decade. These forces included Expanding international trade and the penetration of competitive global pressures into local markets. The problematic nature of food security, and access to food. The exponential population growth, migration and urbanization occurring in the world today. The rapid development of science and technology. The increasing pressures on land use. The need for sustainable agriculture and natural resources management. The growing expectations for participation and control of institutional decision-making. The imbalances in supply of and demand of well trained agricultural workers. The persistence of poverty, AIDS, illiteracy and the poor quality of human development services in most developing countries. Furthermore, the challenge of addressing these needs are complicated by both the limited access of farmers to relevant agricultural information and the public sectors apparent dearth of financial resources for agricultural extension. In this regard if extension is to be relevant and responsive in the 21 st century, it needs to service farm families in an increasingly complex, interdependent, rapidly changing, resource stressed world and it must be affordable (Antholt, 1991).

PAGE 34

23 Approaches to Extension Services In practice, extension organizations everywhere pursue the overall goals of technology transfer and human resource development, though within each organization there is a mix of objectives and within each country there is a mix of organizational patterns (Nagel, 1997). Technology transfer has a focus on production and technical efficiency and has been predominant in recent years while human resource development has focused more on institutional building, organization work, leadership development, increasing farmer knowledge and social change (The World Bank, 2003a). These two premises have led to a wide variety of approaches to extension. A well-recognized categorization of extension approaches is the one by Axinn (1988). His book Guide on Alternative Extension examines eight approaches to extension. These include: the general agricultural extension approach, commodity specialized approach, training and visit approach, the agricultural extension participatory approach, project approach, farming systems development approach, cost sharing approach and the educational institution approach. An alternate classification by Nagel (1997) differentiates between approaches that at least in principle, target all persons in rural areas engaged in farming and those that purposely select clientele according to specific criteria. The general clientele approach is offered by Ministry-based Extension (in most countries) and Cooperative Extension in the United States. While selected clientele approaches includes commodity-based extension, commercial services and client-based & client-controlled extension. Anderson and Feder of The World Bank (2003b) prefer to focus on specific formats or approaches to extension that have appeared in the last three decades as an attempt to overcome some of the weakness inherent in the public extension systems of recent

PAGE 35

24 decades. These include Training and Visit (T&V), decentralization, privatized extension and Farmer Field Schools (FFS). In contrast Rivera et al. (2001) distinguishes between a variety of public sector reform strategies supporting the new paradigm market-driven income-generation (Table 2-1). According to this distinction, market reforms encompass four major reform strategies. These include: revision of public sector systems, pluralism, cost recovery and total privatization. Table 2-1. Extension Market Reform Strategies. Market Reforms Funding Public Private Revision of public sector Cost recovery Public via downsizing & (fee-based) systems some cost recovery (OECD countries, Delivery previously in Mexico) Pluralism, partnerships, power Privatization (total) Sharing Commercialization Private (Chile, Estonia, Hungary, (The Netherlands, New Zealand Venezuela, S.Korea, Taiwan) England & Wales) Source: Rivera et al. (2001) The non-market reforms comprise two main reform strategies: decentralization and subsidiarity. Decentralization is focused on transferring central government authority to lower tiers of government, and subsidiarity is the transferring or delegation of responsibility to the lowest level of society. Table 2-2 employs illustrates non-market-oriented structural reforms. Both Table 2-1 and 2-2 highlight the main strategies adopted worldwide by countries undertaking public sector institutional reform and provides examples of countries that have followed such reforms.

PAGE 36

25 Based on the above, it is deemed necessary to review public, private and farmer-led extension in order to gain a deeper understanding of the factors or reforms that can surface in the analysis of our study. Table 2-2. Extension Non-Market Reform Strategies. Non-market reforms Decentralization to lower tiers Transfer (delegation) of Political of government responsibility to other entities Fiscal Administrative (Colombia, Indonesia, Mxico (Bolivia, to farmer organizations; Issues The Philippines, Uganda & Ecuador, mixed with farmer-led others) NGO programs; Peru, extension devolved to NGOs) Source: Rivera et al. (2001) Public Extension The evolution of public agricultural extension arrived at a worldwide turning point in the 1980s; it was, so to speak, the end of the beginning as Rivera et al. (2001) defines it. The traditional approach of public extension led by ministries of agricultural mostly needed to be redefined and modernized. A basic premise for such change lay in the fact that the public sector in general is overly burdened with numerous activities and so it was believed that moving some of them to the private sector might allow more effective implementation of essential services (Schwartz and Zijp, 1994). At the time public sector extension worldwide had been criticized for not doing enough, not doing it well, and for not being relevant. Critics emphasized the insufficient impact in effectiveness, in efficiency, and the lack of programs that fostered equity (Rivera et al. 1991). Furthermore, Benor and Harrison (1977), in one of the most influential extension publications ever, evaluated ministry-based extension systems and found that its poor performance was related to four leading causes. These causes included: inadequate internal organizational structures, inefficiency of extension personnel, inappropriateness

PAGE 37

26 or irrelevance of extension content and dilution of extension impact. Their findings in the late 1970s can be considered root causes for many of the problems public sector extension is facing today. In addition, Nagel (1997) cited the contradictory nature of the goals of public extension as one of the leading causes for the lack of success. He argued that goals were too ambitious for a single organization. After all, public interest implies serving farmers and the urban population, securing subsistence production and promoting cash crops for export, reaching the masses of rural households and serving the needs of specific groups, extending assistance to high-potential and disadvantaged producers all at the same time. Consequently it has been hard for extension to program and deliver quality programs to the different segments of clientele, and often this has led extension to ignore or give less emphasis to less advantaged farmers. Wilson (1991) found that public extension services demonstrated a bias towards farmers with better access to productive resources and larger holdings in a study conducted in Ecuador. Moreover, Nagel (1997) argues that priorities for extension have too often been pro urban in terms of price policy, favoring innovative individuals within the modern sector, neglecting poorer strata and forgetting about women farmers. In addition he considers that priority setting for research has been rarely based on extension field evaluations because the system did not foster critical upward communication. While on the technical side, knowledge has been transformed into field messages that frequently led to distorted and outdated communication. Yet another central problem for public extension might lie in the fact that extension has never been seen as a purely educational activity by ministries of agriculture and

PAGE 38

27 governments (Nagel, 1997). In contrast, Rivera (2003) blames the internal bureaucratic and field mismanagement, inadequate infrastructure and institutional support and insufficient training for the range of programmatic and specialized problems that have needed to be resolved. Nagel (1997) argues that the hierarchical and highly bureaucratic way in which services were organized hampered a full realization of their potential. Nonetheless, one of the major challenges, if not the most important, that public extension has faced is to serve large numbers of farmers using limited public funds. Realistically, large numbers of farmers cannot be reached by publicly supported extension services and consequently millions of farmers are not yet being reached by agricultural extension services (Malouf et al., 1991). To remedy some of the problems discussed earlier in terms of coverage and fiscal arrangements, the public sector has been (1) shifting its services to the private sector sometimes totally as in the case of the Netherlands (Proost & Duijsings, 1991), New Zealand and Peru (Rivera, 2003); or (2) partially through contractual, outsourcing arrangements like in Chile, or by (3) adopting private sector practices such as cost-recovery schemes or fee-based activities for services that were once freely provided. Such is the case in Northwest Mexico where fee-based programs have been established for large farmers (Rivera et al. 1991), and in Honduras where farmers are expected to pay a portion of the costs of extension (Hermosilla & Macias, 2002). As a result, there is an increase of the private sector in extension (Rivera, 2003). Due to its importance, the provision of private extension and its modalities is discussed later in this chapter. Still, aside from the need to partner with the private sector and to enter where markets fail, public sector services are necessary to protect the environment, ensure

PAGE 39

28 public health, prevent inequity regarding access to public information, and provide for emergencies (Qamar 2000; Rivera 2003). Also, a professional public extension serves to validate information from commercial sources, transfer practices (not just technology), conduct and report accomplishments and promote organizational action (Rivera, 2003). Furthermore, one of the primary reasons for public sector extension is for its public good attributes. According to Kalambokidis (2004) public value is created when a service benefits society as a whole. When a service is recognized as having significant public value, even citizens who do not directly benefit from the service will endorse its public funding. The perception of agricultural information as a public good and subject to market failure has provided the prime argument in policy debates since the 1960s for the continued provision of government extension services (Marsh & Pannell, 1999). Two of the most important reforms to public extension that took place in the past three decades are discussed next. The first is Training and Visit extension, developed and promoted by The World Bank in the 1970s and 1980s as a means to improve organizational and programmatic structures of public sector extension and the second is decentralization, a major reform that led to a transfer of powers, responsibilities and functions from government to market (Rivera, 1997). Training and visit extension (T&V) The T&V model in the strict sense of the word is not a separate approach but one way to organize ministry-based extension in developing countries (Nagel, 1997). This model was promoted by the World Bank between 1975-1995 as a national public extension system and was applied in more than 70 countries. T&V attempted to tackle some of the weaknesses of extension at the time. T&V extension consisted of the following features (The World Bank, 2003b):

PAGE 40

29 A single line of command, with several levels of field and supervisory staff. In-house technical expertise, whereby subject matter specialists are to provide training to staff and tackle technical issues reported by field staff. Exclusive dedication to information dissemination work. A strict and predetermined schedule of village visits within a 2 week cycle where contacts are to be made with selected and identified contact farmers. Mandatory bi-weekly training emphasizing the key set of messages for the forthcoming 2 week cycle. A seasonal workshop with research personnel. Improved remuneration to extension staff, and provision of transportation. T&V is considered the most ambitious of all the attempts to rehabilitate extension. It is estimated that most of the $2.3 billion spent by The World Bank between 1974 and 1984 went to T&V system projects (Kaimowitz, 1991). However the appropriateness and achievements of T&V have been fiercely contested (Hulme, 1991). The World Bank (2003b) has reported that the costs of T&V structure were higher by some 25 to 40% than the systems they replaced. This made T&V extension more dependent on public budget allocations. Secondly, the design intended to tackle the accountability issue by improving managements ability to monitor staff activities, taking advantage of the strict visit schedule, the identifiable contact farmer, and the intensive hierarchy of supervisory staff. However, the problem lied in the fact that the quality of extension services was not practically monitored, and ultimately managers and policy makers could not observe the impact of T&V extension. In conclusion, the lack of accountability to farmers was not resolved. Lastly, some of the features of the design could not stand up to practical realities. For example, the contact farmer approach was often replaced by a contact group approach because biases in the selection of contact farmers led to diminished diffusion. As a result, the consequences for extension were apparently negative.

PAGE 41

30 Nonetheless, the T&V had significant impacts for extension. The first and more recognized is that approximately 60 to 70 countries government operated extension services were positively restructured (at least in part) and their internal systems redesigned. The second, and not so commonly perceived impact, according to Hulme (1991), is that T&V has been a powerful force in defending the role of the public sector in agricultural development. T&V proved to have administrative advantages including defined lines of authority and personnel management; however, it could not be sustained after extension projects ended (IFAD, 2004). The limited success of T&V in its present form as a nationwide extension system should not discredit the quality and appropriateness of many of its elements. Applied less rigidly and combined with the tools of human resource development as well as with the concept of participation, these elements may constitute a valuable base for reforming extension organizations, large or small (Nagel et al., 1992). Decentralization Recent decentralization efforts take place in a context of extension re-conceptualizing and re-structuring that generally acknowledges that supply-side extension should be abandoned for demand-driven approaches that are more responsive to farmers' needs. Several factors argue for a re-assessment of extension, including the fiscal crisis that has made it hard for governments to provide adequate resources for extension and pressures towards more participatory approaches that allow farmers to influence the design, implementation and evaluation of extension activities (Van Crowder, 1996). The chronic difficulties of maintaining a public-sector extension service and the importance of farmer participation have led to a wider scope for extension through non-governmental intermediaries such as NGOs and farmer organizations.

PAGE 42

31 Financial pressures have led to exploration of ways to reduce government costs by decentralization, privatizing extension services and cost-sharing arrangements with NGOs and farmers' organizations (Van Crowder, 1996). The decentralization of extension services retains the public delivery and public funding characteristics of traditional centralized extension but transfers the responsibility for delivery to local governments (The World Bank, 2003b). Rondinelli (1981), distinguishes between four different categories of decentralization: 1. Deconcentration is defined as a transfer of power to local administrative offices of the central government. 2. Delegation is the transfer of power to sub national governments and/or parastatals, or other government entities. 3. Devolution is the transfer of power to sub national political entities. 4. Privatization is the transfer of power to the private sector. Decentralization not only gives local government control over personnel and finances, but in theory it focuses control closer to the level of farmers and thus can improve extension accountability to their needs. Rivera (1996) has observed three policy directions that dominate extension decentralization: 1. Decentralization shifts the burden of extension costs through fiscal system redesign with greater local government shifts for participation in financing and managing extension. 2. Decentralization of extension enables structural reform with the goal of improving institutional responsiveness and accountability. 3. Decentralization refocuses the management of extension through farmer participatory involvement in decision-making and responsibility for extension programs. The advantages of decentralization are improvement in accountability, increased coordination of local resources and higher commitment of clientele and leaders due to increased participation in the planning and implementation stages of extension programs. Nonetheless, decentralized extension also comes with serious threats such as: greater risk

PAGE 43

32 of political interference and utilization of extension staff and resources for other purposes, difficulties with maintaining agent quality due to the loss of economies of scales in training. Most critical is the fact that extension-research linkages are more difficult to organize, and issues with financial sustainability increase. In actuality, costs are not decreased but instead they are merely transferred to the local level (The World Bank, 2003b). Furthermore FAO (1997) states that decentralization has not adequately developed alternatives to be used in places where the human resources at the local level are considered poor and illiterate as in the case of Honduras. A study conducted by Llamb and Lindemann (2001) in seven Latin American countries (Colombia, Chile, Per, Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela) showed that none of the reforms leading to decentralization have reached all their alleged goals, namely increased market competitiveness, poverty reduction, environmental sustainability and sound governability. Furthermore, they affirm that after 2 decades of reform there is still a tension between macroeconomic policies and agricultural policies. They have stated Nor in any case have we found a neat policy for the restructuring of the whole agricultural public sector (p.7). They feel that there is always an unavoidable and unrelenting tension between the forces of centralization and decentralization. In all the Latin American cases this tension exists not only between central and local governments, but it also manifests itself in the relationships between regional and local governments. Tension even exists at the local government level between the local offices and rural communities. In contrast, the proceedings of the International Seminar El espacio municipal: nuevos desafos y posibilidades para el desarrollo rural con participacin

PAGE 44

33 ciudadana from FAO (1997) state that decentralization in Bolivia has led to increased participation of peasant and indigenous groups in decision making at the local level. As a result, extension providers are tailoring their programs to needs of these less advantaged segments of rural population. Privatized Extension In its pure sense, privatization implies a full transfer of ownership from government extension to a private entity, with that entity meeting all costs and receiving any profits (Rivera and Cary, 1997). In reality what has emerged are a series of approaches like the fee-for-service for extension (where the provider may be a public entity or private firms or consultants). In developing countries it usually entails considerable public funding even if the provider is private (The World Bank, 2003b). The diverse financial arrangements adopted in the last 2 decades by governments worldwide to fund agricultural extension services provide a menu of options for consideration. The cost recovery approach has been used in countries like Mexico where fee-based systems among large-scale farmers in the Northwest region of the country are used. The voucher system used Chile and Colombia has replaced partially or totally public extension delivery systems by vouchers distributed by government services for farmers to use in hiring private extension consultants. These vouchers are attached to agricultural bank loans, committing a certain percentage of the loan for extension services (Rivera and Cary, 1997). The gradual privatization process such as the one that occurred in the Netherlands was done by transferring one half of the field extension personnel to farmer associations while the responsibility for linking research and the privatized extension services, policy preparation, implementation, and promotion and regulatory tasks remained under the control of the Ministry of Agriculture (Le Gouis, 1991 cited by

PAGE 45

34 Rivera and Cary, 1997). The technical staff of farmer associations has since transferred to a private company, the DLV Adviesgroep Inc. Some of the criticisms to forms of privatization of extension services are that there is a focus on commercial farms. Questions arise about extension services for poor and less advantaged farmers or those for whom the value of information is lower. New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world that is on the verge of becoming fully privatized. Although there has been no formal assessment of the impact of the changes in New Zealand there appears to be less interactions between organizations, reduced feedback from farmers to science providers, and more limited information distribution, particularly to farmers who are less well-off (Rivera and Cary, 1997). Still, Maalouf et al. (1991) believes that because of the problems agricultural extension is facing in developing countries, neither publicly or privately supported extension work can do the job alone or separately. Cooperation and complementation of the public and private sectors in the area of extension offer the potential to Increase resources for extension services to farmers. Reduce overlap and significantly increase the number of farmers reached by extension. Increase and improve the utilization of agricultural research findings from both public and private interests supporting agricultural research and development investment. Farmer-Led Extension Over the last decade, a growing number of organizations have sought models which seek to be both more effective in serving farmers needs and institutionally more sustainable. Farmer-led extension seeks to promote farmers and other rural people, rather than professional extensionists and researchers, as the principal agents of change (Scarborough et al., 1997). The proliferation of such approaches has been attributed to

PAGE 46

35 the dissatisfaction with results from traditional extension programs and the contraction of funding for public extension (The World Bank, 2003b). Farmer-led extension encompasses a diversity of activities that seek to ensure that agricultural extension or research services are responsive to resource-poor farmers needs and potentials. Experts in the field (Scarborough et al. 1997) have defined farmer-led extension as a multidirectional communication process between and among extension staff and farmers. It involves the sharing, sourcing and development of knowledge and skills in order to meet farming needs and develop innovative capacity among all actors. Farmers have a controlling interest and are center stage as the protagonists, and they play a key role in technology development and delivery. This approach seeks to involve farmers in training other farmers and trainers, and in sharing, sourcing and transferring knowledge and skills. The Norwegian farmer-led Research and Extension Circles (R/E) constitute an example of successful farmer led programs. The circles revitalized the Norwegian extension services and contributed to increased agricultural production and more active agricultural communities in rural areas. The R/E circles are farmer-initiated, based on farmer membership and run by its members. Haug (1991) attributes the success of the program to the farmer-led structure, along with government-supported fee based private extension, on-farm adaptive research and the combination of both adaptive research and extension. Variations of farmer-led extension include Farmer-to-Farmer extension, Farmer Field Schools (FFS), the problem census/problem solving approach; NGO-government collaboration; and other approaches that provide limited external assistance that enable farmers to manage, adapt and spread innovations through their own efforts (The World

PAGE 47

36 Bank, 2003a). A brief discussion of the most relevant approaches to Farmer-led extension is provided next. Farmer-to-farmer extension Farmer-to-farmer extension, in which farmers are the primary extension agents, is probably the most common form of farmer-led extension. It involves farmers undertaking extension activities, with or without the support of external agents (Scarborough et al. 1997). Holt-Gimenez in IFAD (1996) has referred to the movement as farmers helping their brothers... so that they can help themselves to find solutions and not be dependent on a technician or on the bank. (p.1) The pure farmer-to-farmer vein is often found in areas where appropriate government services are almost non-existent or recommended technologies have been inappropriate. Farmer-to-farmer is founded on a spirit of voluntarism from within highly motivated groups. The two pillars of this methodology are farmer innovation and farmer solidarity (IFAD, 1996). In other words, it is largely self-contained and self-reliant. Scarborough et al. (1997) affirm that the campesino-a-campesino (peasant-to-peasant) movement in Latin America, the best-known farmer-to-farmer extension network, typifies this approach. This network is active in many Latin American Countries as well as in parts of Southeast Asia and Africa and is characterized by The emergence of a movement initiated and sustained by farmers. The generation of most innovations by farmers themselves, with occasional external support, for instance from an NGO. The provision of training by farmers, to farmers, often through the creation of a structure of farmer-promoters and farmer-trainers. The basic methodological principles for farmer-to-farmer extension detailed by Bunch (1982) in Two Ears of Corn have not changed significantly (Scarborough et al.

PAGE 48

37 1997). These principles include obtaining rapid and recognizable results, starting small and going slowly, limiting the introduction of technology, using small-scale experimentation and developing a multiplier effect. Nonetheless, the authors state that the advantage of these basic principles lies in their flexibility. Holt-Gimenez in IFAD (1996) recognizes that the development of the campesino-a-campesino technological basket has been unsystematic, evolving as campesinos from different areas become interested and begin experimenting with and sharing their innovations. The campesino learning methods documented in the technological basket are deductive, hands-on and frequently laced with humor and local folklore. Among the benefits and advantages of farmer-to-farmer extension (Scarborough et al.1997 p.35) are as follows: Language: Farmer-extensionists speak the same language as their colleagues, both literally and culturally, easing communication and understanding. Relevance: Farmer-extensionists are likely to understand their colleagues constraints, potentials and aspirations better than more educated, non-farming professional extensionists. Availability: Farmer-extensionists can often be available at times more suited to other farmers than professional extensionists find possible. Accountability: Farmer-extensionists working in their own communities are more directly accountable to the farmers they serve than is the case with professional extension officers. This is particularly true if farmer communities contribute to the costs of farmer-extensionists work. Credibility: Farmer-extensionists have the same background, and farm under similar constraints as other farmers. Their demonstrations of new technologies and management practices can therefore be more convincing than those undertaken by professional extensionists. Sustainability: At the end of the project, the farmer extensionists stay in the community and may continue to pursue agricultural or other rural-development initiatives.

PAGE 49

38 However, this approach is likely to be limited to those areas for which new technologies are available, and it is unlikely to be offered to farmers through public extension services. Still many experts suggest that extensions new priorities should be farmer-led and believe that the concept of farmer first and last have come to prominence (Rivera et al. 1991). Farmer field schools Farmer field schools (FFS) are another form of farmer-led extension because of the central role farmers have in the program. FFS is a participatory approach designed originally as a way to introduce knowledge on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) at the grassroots level to advance the principle of stakeholder participation in program decision-making with a view of eventually giving full responsibility to stakeholders for program development (Rivera et al. 2001). The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) first introduced the program to rice farmers in Southeast Asia in 1990. FFS has since spread to other regions, and today it is beginning to develop in Latin America as one of the alternatives to traditional national extension activities, in such countries as Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru (Rivera et al. 2001). FFS is mainly used in IPM programs and represents an attempt to get away from centralized extension practices and return the locus of interaction to the farmers fields (Scarborough et al., 1997). The FFS approach relies on participatory training methods to convey knowledge through field schools to make farmers into .. confident pest experts, self-teaching experimenters, and effective trainers of other farmers (p.20) (Wiebers, 1993 cited by The World Bank, 2003b). The FFS experience entails some 9 to 12 half day sessions of hands-on, farmer experimentation and nonformal training to a group of 20 to 25 farmers during a single crop growing season. Initially, paid trainers lead this

PAGE 50

39 village-level program, delivering elements and practical solutions for overall good crop management practices and through group interactions. Attendees sharpen their decision-making abilities and are empowered by learning leadership, communication and management skills (van de Fliert, 1993 cited by The World Bank, 2003b). FFS requires that professional researchers and extension officers become experts both in farming and in facilitating farmers to undertake their own research. Some of the major criticisms of FFS include issues about accountability, financial sustainability and dissemination of knowledge by trained farmers. Because it requires significant investments in time, trainers and facilities, FFS can be an expensive way of diffusing new science-based knowledge and other information to farmers. Quizon et al. (2000) add that the intense training activities are expensive per farmer trained, and they imply that the amount of service actually delivered by each farmer would be small when considered from a national perspective. The World Bank (2003b) suggest that cost effectiveness and financial sustainability could be improved if farmer-trainers were to become the main trainers, perhaps with significant community funding, and if informal farmer-to-farmer communications were to facilitate knowledge diffusion. A study conducted by Rola et al. (2002) with Rice farmers in Iloilo, Philippines suggest that there is very little diffusion of FFS acquired knowledge from field school graduates to other community members presumably because the content of the training is not easy to transmit in casual, nonstructured communications. Still the findings of this study imply that graduates retain their field school acquired knowledge. FFS can be complementary to farmer-to-farmer extension, and most programs encourage their participants to share their methods and results through farmer-to-farmer

PAGE 51

40 extension. Quizon et al. (2000) affirm that FFS provide an interesting perspective as an alternative learning or problem-solving approach. They state that other authors see FFS not as an extension approach for disseminating information, but as an empowerment and citizenship opportunity. The problem census/problem solving (PC/PS) approach The problem census is a participatory, group-based extension method that enables farmers to identify their needs and problems, and recommend appropriate solutions and action by building on the knowledge and experience of the farmers involved (Scarborough et al., 1997). Experiences in Nepal and Bangladesh document that farmers are demonstrating great interest in and enthusiasm for incorporating their felt needs into the planning process, and they are coming up with their own ways for meeting those needs. Strengths of the PC/PS include a decrease in the communication gap between farmers, researchers and extension staff and an increased presence of extension staff in the communities. This has led to increased farmer participation, built up farmers confidence, increased trust in extension staff and most importantly the development of realistic plans and programs. The problems of this approach include a lack of training for facilitators and of qualified personnel within extension to face some of the multi-disciplinary issues identified during the process. The NGO-government collaboration During the last decade several factors have led (some would say pushed) government agencies and NGOs toward more collaborative efforts in agricultural research and extension. This has been caused by two major factors. First, although traditionally dominated by the public sector, in many parts of the world extension services have been effectively provided to thousands of communities through innovative,

PAGE 52

41 resource-intensive NGO programs. Secondly, public sector capabilities have been reduced by shrinking budgets, the declining relative contribution of agriculture to the economy, and poor returns on investments (Scarborough et al. 1997). As a result, comparative advantages have moved NGOs and governments to work together in order to provide better research and extension support to agricultural production. Collaborative linkages between government agencies and NGOs focus primarily on concrete, time bound activities such as training programs, but linkages can include a multitude of activities (Scarborough, 1997). Farrington (1997) considers of crucial importance the fact that because NGOs are independent, they are not mandated to collaborate with research and extension services in the way that government departments might be. He posits that NGOs will only collaborate if governments have something useful to offer. Although much has been said about NGOs, it is important to review some of the strengths and weakness that affect collaboration with extension. According to Farrington (1997) the strengths of NGOs include Horizontally short lines of communication that allow flexibility and quick responses to clients needs and to changing circumstances. Access to remote areas. NGO concerns with the rural poor means that they often maintain a field presence in remote locations where it is typically difficult to do so. Access to new tools and methodologies. NGOs have pioneered a wide range of participatory methods for diagnosis, innovative dissemination and have even introduced system approaches for testing new technology. Often these efforts have extended into processing and marketing as with soy in Bangladesh and cocoa in Bolivia. NGOs experience with group formation based on felt needs has proven to be a valuable asset. In contrast, some of the weaknesses of NGOs outlined by Farrington (1997) include

PAGE 53

42 Small size, independence and differences in philosophy limit learning from each others experience and against the creation of forums, whether at the national or provincial level. Some fashionable locations have become densely populated by the diversity of NGOs. Problems have arisen not merely from competition for the same clientele, but of some NGOs undermining the activities of others (Overseas Development Institute, 1992). Some NGOs are more accountable to external funding agencies than to the clientele they claim to serve. Donor pressure to achieve short term impact, combined with the lack of cross-learning has led in some cases to the promotion of inappropriate technology such as protected horticultural systems in the Bolivian Andes (Overseas Development Institute, 1991). The fact that some NGOs have placed great emphasis on volunteerism, sometimes promoted at the expense of financially sustainable alternatives. Farrington (1997) found that evident in SIDAs farm-level forestry project in North Vietnam where the scope for supporting an emerging private nursery sector in the provision of technical advice was ignored, and complex and largely voluntary advisory services at the village level were promoted instead. Collaboration between NGOs and governments can take place in various forms Scarborough et al. (1997). Common collaboration activities include problem identification, planning, technology development and the provision of critical production inputs such as information, credit, seeds and animals. Furthermore, Farrington (1997) has found what he calls example configurations that offer potential for replication and adaptation in three areas: providing technical advice and feedback, training, and working with groups. Experiences of NGO-government collaboration are mixed. In Chile, the government has contracted private technology companies to cater to the larger commercial farmers, and NGOs for small subsistence-oriented farmers. However, similar attempts in India have been largely unsuccessful. One reason for this is the NGO

PAGE 54

43 concern that many of the technical recommendations from governmental research institutes are not relevant to small-scale farmers. Another reason is that mechanisms for bottom-up feedback in existing technologies and for articulation of demands for new technologies remain weak (Farrington, 1997). Nonetheless, the potential impact of NGO-government collaboration is that it allows institutions to avoid duplicated efforts in the field and to increase coverage. Still, Scarborough et al. (1997) considers it an uneasy partnership that in many cases is still built around the lack of trust and deep suspicion on both sides. Difficulties over ownership and control of individual (or joint) resources often remain an obstacle. Differing institutional agendas may prevent collaboration from being based upon a shared vision and common objectives. A common problem faced by NGOs has been that government agencies seek to implement change more rapidly than NGOs feel is sustainable. Scarborough et al. (1997) concluded that collaboration between government agencies and NGOs is usually more difficult than originally thought. In addition, Scarborough et al. (1997) outline important lessons learned from collaboration based on the experiences of 70 participants to the farmer-led extension workshop held in the Philippines in 1995. These lessons show that Farmers can be very active partners in extension and can set an agenda and direct a process in which government agencies and NGOs can participate to meet the needs of the farmers and their communities. Whatever extension approach is used, it should ensure that farmers are encouraged to share their experiences with others. Benefits can be achieved from NGO-government collaboration. During the process of collaboration, stereotypical views held by one group about the other partner can be broken down, even if quite slowly. It is important to get the agenda and parameters of collaboration right at the outset.

PAGE 55

44 Delivery of Livestock Services The livestock sector plays a crucial role in the economies of many developing countries as an important source of protein-rich products. It is a vital generator of employment. For many farmers in the developing world, livestock also provides a means of storing wealth, a cushion for food shortages, and a source of fertilizer and/or fuel, a means of transportation, and as source of traction in agricultural production (The World Bank, 1992). Nonetheless, the ability of the sector to attain its full productive potential is influenced by the availability and quality of livestock support services (Umali et al. 1994). According to The World Bank (1992) livestock services can be grouped into two major functional categories: health and production services. Health services include curative and preventive services and the provision of pharmaceuticals. Curative services include the provision of clinical care, while preventive services consist of vaccination, vector control, eradication programs, and disease control measures such as quarantines, the slaughter of diseased animals and movement restrictions. On the other hand, production services include research and extension relating to improved livestock husbandry and the provision of input supplies such as seeds, feeds and artificial insemination. Production services try to improve livestock productivity by such means as genetic upgrading of livestock through artificial insemination, the improved formulation of feeds, the use of improved forages and changes in management practices. Consequently, the major players that shape the livestock services sector are veterinarians and veterinary paraprofessionals, stockowners (commercial livestock farmers, sedentary or mixed farm producers, pastoralists, and small backyard raisers), herders, consumers, government, inter-governmental, non-governmental donors in

PAGE 56

45 developing countries, and private entrepreneurs providing specialized services. In addition, veterinary paraprofessionals (field technicians, field vaccinators, producer representatives) assist veterinarians with their duties. In some countries, the limited number of trained veterinarians and their unwillingness to serve in remote rural areas has made paraprofessionals very valuable. In most cases veterinarians, sale agents of agribusiness and veterinary pharmaceutical companies, provide information regarding livestock upgrading, improved production practices, hygiene and sanitation, and feeding as a complementary service to farmers. Increasing competition in the livestock sector market has led to complementary livestock services extension, designed to promote and strengthen customer loyalty and expand market shares (Umali et al. 1994). Countries like Argentina, Brazil and the United States have seen an increase in the number of private consulting firms specializing in the provision of technical and extension services. These private consulting firms thrive because their services are tailored to the needs of specific farmers or farmer groups and are not necessarily relevant to other producers, and this minimizes free-rider problems. Umali et al. (1994) affirmed that in Argentina and Brazil there is a growing tendency toward market segmentation in extension services. Private consulting firms tend to cater to the specialized technical and extension needs of the large-scale farmers, while government efforts have concentrated on the medium and small-scale enterprises. The provision of livestock service has often been in the domain of the public sector (Umali et al. 1994). Over time, a growing diversity has developed in the manner in which livestock services are delivered in individual countries. In most developing countries, livestock services still remain a government responsibility, while in more

PAGE 57

46 developed countries, some support service functions of the government are being performed in partnership with, or have been transferred to, the private sector. de Hann (1999) foresees strong support for livestock development in the near future as there is now increasing realization, that livestock development programs can play an important role in reducing rural poverty in the developing world. Second, the demand for animal products in the developing world is growing fast, and it can be expected to continue. Recent projections show that over the next twenty years, the demand for meat in developing countries will increase by about 2.7% and the demand for milk by 3.2% (de Hann, 1999). In response to these events de Hann believes there is a change in focus from pure production, to an increasing attention to the milk and meat production of smallholders and mixed farmers. He believes that improving the national supply of livestock products is increasingly seen as a pure private responsibility while public services are increasingly being concentrated on environmental mitigation and poverty alleviation. Importance and Types of Needs Assessments A major struggle for extension is being responsive to the needs of clientele. Needs assessments are a systematic process to identify clientele needs in order to set program priorities and make decisions about the allocation of resources (Seevers et al. 1997). Needs assessment helps determine if gaps exist between what is and what should be in terms of the outcomes of extension programs and then determining the priority of these needs (McCaslin & Tibezinda, 1997). Some of the most popular approaches used to identify needs in communities are: needs assessment, customer profiling and asset-based analysis. The needs assessment approach is very popular in extension and community development organizations while asset-based analysis and costumer profiling are used

PAGE 58

47 less. On the international scene, an increasing emphasis has been placed on citizen involvement through bottom-up and grassroots program planning and development (Swanson et al. 1997). Techniques used in needs assessment include individual (face-to-face interviews, questionnaires, key informant interviews), group (focus groups, delphi technique, nominal and informal groups), secondary source (census reports, records and previous studies) and rapid rural appraisal. The most direct method of assessing needs is to ask potential learners what their interest level is for a particular educational topic (Bielema & Sofranko, 1983). If done well, needs assessment is both a process and a method. As a process, it can build leadership, group cohesion, and a sense of local involvement in the community or clientele. As a method, needs assessment is a tool that helps a community plan for and implement strategies in areas as diverse as crime watch programs, business expansion efforts, and youth recreation (Israel & Ilvento, 1995). Needs assessment has long been an important program development tool, but one that is often expensive to undertake. A disadvantage of this approach is that it often requires staff that are well educated to conduct interviews and facilitate focus groups in order to gather information that reflects the needs and real problems of clientele. Another difficulty is that problems identified can be the cause of other problems that could be ignored by respondents and therefore not be included in the needs assessment. On the other hand, needs assessment can identify unforeseen needs in the community or problems that had not been considered. Advantages of this approach include evidence of support for policy options, and an increase public involvement in policymaking and program development.

PAGE 59

48 The second approach is customer profiling. Bazik and Feltes (1999), state that customer profiles include the following information: demographics, enterprises, preferred methods of receiving information, business management practices and major sources of information used in making management decisions. Balanko-Dickson (2001) has found that most companies experience 80% of their business from 20% of their customers, and as a result, it makes sense to direct time and energy toward customers who are important. The company attempts to really get to know them, to understand their buying patterns, interests, tastes and attitudes. For extension, customer profiling can have great implications. As discussed by Bazik and Feltes (1999), customer profiling can allow extension to know in greater detail the segments of population it is serving and have a deeper understanding of their wants and needs. The use of costumer profiling can direct resources to develop programs that are extremely interesting and appealing to clientele. Marketing strategies have proven to be very successful for the private sector. However, extension has not taken advantage of this resource to the fullest and by using costumer profiling it would be the first step toward developing marketing strategies. The third approach is the use of an asset-based approach. This approach focuses on a very realistic perspective. It outlines the importance of identifying available resources and building from them. This approach allows the use of resources in a very efficient way. However, one important criticism is that clientele needs and wants can often be ignored. As a result, clientele might feel that programs are not appealing to them. Agents that use the asset-based approach have to make sure they market their programs extensively and to let clientele know how the areas being targeted benefit them directly.

PAGE 60

49 Education in Rural Areas Education and training are the two most powerful weapons in the fight against rural poverty and for rural-development. Unfortunately, these are among the most neglected aspects of rural-development interventions by national governments and by donors (Gasperini and Maguire, 2002). In addition, The World Bank (2002) has found that although the wider context of extension and education services is key to informing and influencing rural household decisions. Unfortunately rural areas usually lag behind urban areas in their access to information. Such lags jeopardize the ability of rural people to realize their full potential and improve their economic, social and environmental conditions. The researchers stress the importance that rural information and education have in unleashing the potential of rural people and enabling them to change their living situations and bring about sustainable development. Gasperini and Maguire (2002) from FAO state that educational opportunities are not equally distributed. Quality of education is lower in rural areas and one reason is that curricula and textbooks in primary and secondary schools are often urban biased. Education is irrelevant to the needs of rural people, and it seldom focuses on issues such as skills of life and rural-development. Furthermore, curricula of vocational and technical agricultural education and higher education still focus heavily on production and productivity, and are often obsolete. Accordingly, Rivera (1995) states that agricultural education and training must be an integral part of any agricultural and rural-development efforts since out of school rural populations represent the largest human resource group in almost every developing country, and the most urgently in need of well-planned programs aimed at agricultural education. This group of farmers, fishermen, foresters, young adults and youth comprise

PAGE 61

50 70 to 90% of the rural population. They need comprehensive nonformal, community based, on-the-farm education and training programs aimed at the development of rural enterprise as well as more efficient farm production. Gasperini & Maguire (2002) suggests that the concept and practice of agricultural education should be redesigned in the developing countries as education for rural-development and food security. Indeed, many needs are rapidly emerging such as trade-related education on agro-health (plant and animal health and food safety), value-added agro-processing, and agro-market competitiveness. These needs arise from the obligations that countries take on as members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the increasing urgency to build competitive advantages aimed at global agricultural market niche opportunities. Based on these facts it can be inferred that a large majority of people in rural areas who urgently need extension and educational training programs are adults. As such, it is important to understand the adult learner. Principles of Adult Education Facilitating the learning experience for adults necessitates an understanding of adulthood in conjunction with the learning process. A wide range of concepts are invoked when the word adult is used Mott (2002). Some tend to think of adults in terms of age. Rogers (1996) has stated that no single age can define an adult even within one society, let alone a comparative basis, because legal and social liabilities come into play at different ages. He argues that a more satisfactory approach may be to identify some of those characteristics inherent within the concept of adulthood. Though they may differ by the person and culture, far-sightedness, self-control, established and accepted values, security, experience and autonomy are among the most common ones.

PAGE 62

51 Research has shown that adults and children learn differently. Knowles (1990) determined that two types of teaching are involved with learning: pedagogy and andragogy. Table 2-3 demonstrates the differences between the two approaches. Table 2-3. Characteristics of Pedagogy and Andragogy. Pedagogy Andragogy Dependent learner Self directed and independent Motivation based on external rewards Internal incentives and curiosity Climate of learning: formal authority, competitive and judgemental Informal climate with mutual respect, consensual, collaborative and supportive Planning done by teacher Participatory decision-making Diagnosis of needs done by teacher Mutual assessment Delivery by transmission and assigned Readings Inquiry projects, independent study and experimental techniques External evaluation Self assessment Source: Baren-Stein & Draper (1993) (p.255). Pedagogy refers to the art of teaching children and andragogy to the art of teaching adults. These two philosophies are not necessarily age dependent, but represent different philosophical orientations or approaches to teaching and learning (Barer-Stein & Draper, 1993 p.4). Adult Education is a process whereby adults gain knowledge or skills in a set of organized activities designed to enhance their quality of life involving educators. An adults ability to acquire new information may have more to do with lifestyle, social roles, and attitudes rather than with an innate ability to learn (Seevers et al., 1997). Malcolm Knowles (1990) has outlined Nine Characteristics of Adult Learners to use when dealing with any adult learner regardless of level, subject or situation (p. 194). Adults need to control their learning. Adults need to feel that learning has immediate utility, ie., that the application of ideas has to be relayed. Adults need to feel that learning focuses on issues that directly concern them. Adults need to test their learning as they go along, rather than receive background theory and general information. Adults need to anticipate how they will use their learning.

PAGE 63

52 Adults need to expect performance improvement to result from their learning. Adult learning is greatest when it maximizes available resources. Adult learning requires a climate that is collaborative, respectful, mutual and informal. Adult learning relies on information that is appropriate to what is known at a given time (i.e., it is developmentally paced). In conclusion, adult learners require a personal productive time, where meaningful connections are made between previous knowledge and experiences with new bodies of knowledge and/or skills that will lead to immediate results. Implications for extension include selecting educational delivery formats and teaching methods that provide learning opportunities that produce the desired learning outcomes (Birkenholz, 1999). Furthermore, extension agents need to understand the social situation, physical conditions and infrastructure of the individual farmers (Lionberger and Gwin, 1982). In the past, approaches to agricultural changes have tended to treat farmers` methods of gaining information as a closed system, and it has become more obvious that adults and especially farmers` systems of information acquisition and decision-making are involved with linkages in a broad social context (Bruening et al., 1992). Overview of delivery methods used in extension To effectively facilitate the learning process, learners must engage in activities that expand their knowledge base from what is known to encompass to that which was previously unknown. Richardson et al. (1996) recognize that extensive learning research has consistently shown that learners need and want to gain some type of experience with new information as well as to be supported and reinforced in the learning process. In the process of receiving information, gaining experience with it, and being reinforced in the learning process learners need to assimilate or integrate the new information with

PAGE 64

53 knowledge they already possess. Thus, to promote effective and efficient learning, a delivery system should include methods, whenever possible, that provide desired experiential opportunities for the learner, reinforce the learner, and provide opportunities for the learner to integrate new information with existing knowledge and skills. Delivery methods can be classified according to the nature of the contact, the form of communication or function (Seevers et al. 1997). Furthermore, delivery methods can be classified according to the stage at which the method can be used in the learning process as illustrated by Richardson (1996). Based on this last classification, delivery methods are classified into four categories: experiential, reinforcement, integrative, and other. Table 2-4 provides the list of the delivery methods that are included in each category. The three initial categories indicate the stage at which the various delivery methods can be used most effectively in a program delivery system. Other methods are applicable in a wide variety of systems or that can be used for limited or special situations. Obviously, many of the methods listed can fit under more than one category. Experiential methods allow the learner to gain experience with or to feel the information presented. This experience may occur through physical activity or it may involve the senses, emotions, or social interaction, depending on the content of the educational program. As the Father of Extension (Seaman A. Knapp) stated: What a man hears, he may doubt; what he sees, he may possibly doubt, but what he does, he cannot doubt (Rasmussen, 1989). Reinforcement delivery methods provide informational, emotional, or social support for the learner to facilitate learning and enhance or maintain the motivation to continue in the learning process. Integrative methods provide the learner opportunities to discuss, clarify, or otherwise gain greater understanding of new information that can be classified. These methods generally provide opportunities for learners to merge new information with their existing knowledge.

PAGE 65

54 Table 2-4. Delivery methods used in extension services. Experiential Reinforcement Integrative Other Result demonstration Conference Factsheet Radio On farm test Convention Notebook Newspaper Tour Seminar Leaflet or flier Movie Field day Panel Magazine article Film strip Workshop Meeting Journal article Photograph Games Symposium Poster Fair Analysis of data Colloquy Book Exhibit Role play Dialogue Newsletter Lecture Case study Institute Home study kit Speech Networking Buzz group Pamphlet or booklet Bulletin board Skit Discussion group Show Audio cassette Brainstorming Broadcast television Video cassette Audience reaction team Interactive video Listening team Audio compact disk Interview Video compact disk Teleconference Method demonstration Telephone conservation Computer network Personal visit Office visit Source: Richardson et al. (1996) (p. 2). According to Birkenholz (1999, p. 44), when selecting an appropriate delivery method, educators should consider the following: Objectives and goals. The educator should determine if the purpose of the instruction is to create awareness, interest, gain knowledge, to apply new information, to teach or perform a skill or to help learners modify, adopt or clarify their attitudes or values. Content. The content will allow the educator to search for specific methods. Resources. The cost of instruction and availability of funds to deliver the program should be analyzed. Adequate facilities and equipment should also be taken into account.

PAGE 66

55 Skills of the educator. The skills and expertise of educators or extension agents are important to farmers. Farmers come to programs to learn new things and will often test their instructors skills and knowledge. Size and educational level of the target group. Desired interaction of learners among themselves and the instructor. Available time. These are some of the main considerations that should be taken into account when designing and carrying out extension programs for farmers. As an educator it is necessary to take into account that each group of learners has different learning styles and preferences. These differences should challenge the educator to bring a wide variety of delivery methods into the program to enhance the learning experience of all learners. Organization and Development of Farmer Groups ISNAR (2002) categorizes farmer groups into three broad organizational types: local grassroots organizations, federations or networks and farmer associations. Local grassroots organizations are formally constituted groups with memberships drawn from a community or groups of communities where interactions are mostly face-to-face and within a horizontal organizational structure. For example, women and peasant groups have emerged in countries like Honduras with the collaboration of NGOs. Federations or networks are multi-tiered organizations composed of an apex body and base units. Examples of these are the National Federation of Labour in the Philippines, the General Agricultural Workers Union in Ghana, the National Federation of the Landowners and Agriculture Shareholders in Romania, the National Confederation of Agriculture Workers in Brazil (IUF, 1997) and the Federacin Nacional de Agricultores y Ganaderos de Honduras (FENAGH). On the other hand, farmer organizations (FO) are vertically integrated organizations with a single governing board, usually with specialized committees and subunits. These are legally constituted entities that have an identifiable membership, a governing body and rules for decision-making.

PAGE 67

56 Chamala and Shingi (1997) have categorized farmer organizations into two types: community-based, resource-orientated farmer organizations; and commodity-based, market-orientated farmer organizations. The characteristics of community-based, resource-orientated farmer organizations include that they are generally small, have well defined geographical areas, are predominantly concerned about inputs and the client group is highly diversified in terms of crops and commodities. On the other hand, market-orientated farmer organizations specialize in a single commodity and opt for value added products that have expanded markets. These organizations are generally small and operate in a competitive environment and the rate of success is generally determined by their capacity to arrange for major investments and a continuous flow of raw materials. Success stories about these type of organizations have been documented in India with dairy FOs such as Anand Milk (Chamala and Shingi, 1997) and the Camara Nacional de Productores de Leche of Costa Rica (Cmara Nacional de Productores de Leche, 2004). Research suggests that farmer groups are key to the development of the agriculture and livestock sector. FOs generally represent farmers demands and interests and provide support services for technology adoption and develop members capacities to use technology (ISNAR, 2002). Since FOs are community-based, and better placed to understand the social, economic and technical needs of farmers, they are ideal organizations for extension to work with. However, many FOs lack capacity, information, new technology, finances and resources (SACRED-AFRICA, 2003). Therefore, it is important to strengthen FOs so that they can exert an effective demand for

PAGE 68

57 agriculture-related services and become active partners in the process of technology change. Addressing the issue of small farmer group associations is both important and timely according to FAO (1999). It is timely because with the privatization of markets and downsizing of public sector programs, many farmer groups are struggling for survival as government subsidies are reduced and markets reformed. Many of the largest government systems have neglected the opportunity to organize groups, empower their clientele and press for equity (Axinn et al. 1997). Furthermore, studies have revealed that belonging to a farmer association or other organized groups contributes to the adoption of sustainable agriculture practices as is the case in Rondnia, Brazil in a study conducted by Caviglia-Harris (2001). The participation of farmers in groups often increases communication between farmers and as a result encourages a sense of peer pressure among members. Leadership Development One of the great challenges leadership development specialists face is how to best facilitate the development of community leaders, given the social and economic challenges faced by these communities. According to Stedman (2004), Bass (1990, p.78) defined leadership as . the focus of group processes, as a matter of personality, as a matter of inducing compliance, as the exercise of influence, as particular behaviors, as a form of persuasion, as a power relation, as an instrument to achieve goals, as an effect of interaction, as a differentiated role, as initiation of structure, and as many combinations of these. Burns (1978) defined leadership as the process of mobilizing, by persons with certain motives and values, various economic, political, and other resources, in a context of competition and conflict, in order to realize goals independently or mutually held by

PAGE 69

58 both leaders and followers. As it can be inferred, leadership includes many variables, the leader him/herself, the followers, the situation, the task, the relationships and more. Many authors have discussed the differences between leadership and management. Kotter (1990) argues the functions of management are to provide order and consistency and in contrast, leadership is to produce change and movement. On the other hand, Northouse (2001) has stated that the functions of leadership and management are similar, but a difference exists. Historically, Northouse identifies leadership from the early studies of Aristotle, whereas the study of management begun in the early 1900s as a response to the industrialization of society. According to Apps (1993), emerging ways of thinking in extension will lead organizations to have a new view of competition, examine the differences between efficient and effective, question specialization, broadly define knowledge to include multiple perspectives, and realize that change isnt constant. Change itself is changing. It is increasingly unpredictable and as a result, next to impossible to prepare for. As a result Apps believes that leaders in extension need to: know what they believe and value, live with paradox, be risk takers, study the context, inspire, empower, build bridges among people and among ideas, challenge the process, embrace ambiguity, serendipity, encourage artistry, appreciate humor, collaborate and above all be guided by quality. Rivera (2003) considers that poor leadership is a serious problem in extension. He believes that organizations work the way they do because of the way people work in these organizations, and often enough the way they work is a reflection of their leadership. He states that to be truly effective, leadership involves leaders at all levels in order to bring about development. Barbuto & Etling (2002) consider that leadership

PAGE 70

59 development is a process, not an event. Furthermore, it is a process that requires a long-term initiative, typically lasting between six and eighteen months. They believe that for leadership development to occur there most be a variety of developmental experiences and also the ability and opportunity to learn from these experiences. In addition, they state individuals who have gained experiences, but havent learned from them (or learning without practical experiences) will not experience any substantive leadership development. The key elements of leadership development experiences include assessment, challenge and support. Consequently, these experiences must be carefully planned to incorporate each of these three components. Finally, they conclude that effective programs are those grounded in solid leadership theory and research. In contrast, Sandmann & Vandenberg (1995) believe that leadership development is not a commodity to deliver or a how-to manual or an iteration of current practice. It is, rather, a perspective, a set of ideas, a way of thinking based on the architecture underlying multiple variations of community action leadership development. Community action leadership development is leadership development for community organizations and it aims to develop individuals abilities to build both a group community spirit and its capacity to engage in effective action. Organizational development is the increase of a groups capacity to engage in concerted and effective action to achieve group goals. Finally, Sandmann and Vandenberg consider that leadership development is the growth of individuals capacities to facilitate community development and organizational development. Leadership development programs have been launched in several countries. The New Zealand Young Farmers Leadership Development Program sponsored by the

PAGE 71

60 Ministry of Agriculture in March 2004 is an example of such initiatives. The program was initiated by young farmers to increase the number of young people becoming involved in rural community and industry leadership roles. The primary objective of this program was to develop young members so they may participate more effectively in organizations related with the agricultural sector throughout their lives. Conclusion This literature review chapter was comprised of the following: extension in the development of the agricultural and livestock sector, factors that affect extension performance, approaches to extension services, delivery of livestock services, importance and types of needs assessments, education in rural areas, principles of adult education, overview of delivery methods, organization and development of farmer groups and leadership within farmer groups. Literature documents that there are potential reasons to assume that the quality and availability of extension services to dairy farmers in Honduras, and this plays a major role in the productivity of the sector. Our study seeks to identify farmers educational needs, based on the subject areas highlighted in this literature review. The next chapter focuses on methods and procedures utilized in our study.

PAGE 72

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Chapter 1 provided a description of the situation of milk production in Honduras, the factors affecting it and of the extension services available to dairy farmers in Honduras. Chapter 1 also identified the need of the study, purpose of the study, objectives of the study, the limitations and significance. Chapter 2 presented relevant literature to the areas covered in our study. Included was a discussion of the following topic areas: 1) extension in the development of the agricultural and livestock sector, 2) factors that affect the performance of extension, 3) approaches to extension services, 4) delivery of livestock services, 5) importance and types of needs assessments, 6) education in rural areas, 7) principles of adult education, 8) overview of delivery methods, 9) organization and development of farmer groups and 10) leadership within farmer groups. This chapter explains the methods used to accomplish the objectives of the study. The main purpose of our study was to determine the perceptions of three groups of dairy farmers (New CREL members, Old CREL members and large farmers) on extensions educational delivery in the northern coast of Honduras. For our study, milk collection centers known as CRELs were categorized into New and Old CREL. New CRELs were either in the process of starting operations or had recently started operating at the time of our study while Old CRELs had started operations in the years 2000 and 2001. Large farmers were not affiliated to CRELs but where considered leaders in the same geographical areas where CRELs were located. The five objectives for the study were to: 61

PAGE 73

62 1) Determine the perceptions of three groups of dairy farmers about extension services, 2) Determine educational delivery methods used in extension programs offered to dairy farmers in Honduras, 3) Determine preferred educational delivery methods for dairy farmers in Honduras, 4) Determine felt and ascribed educational needs for dairy farmers in the north coast of Honduras and 5) Determine perceptions of dairy farmers on open market policies, and its effects on the dairy industry in relation to educational needs. This chapter will describe the methods and procedures used to accomplish the objectives of the study as it relates to1) research design, 2) sample selection, 3) procedure, 4) instrumentation, 5) data collection, and 6) data analysis. Research Design This is an exploratory descriptive study of dairy farmers in the North Coast of Honduras. An extensive review of secondary sources included reports from the Ministry of Agriculture of Honduras, the Directorate of Agricultural Science and Technology (DICTA), the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture (IICA), LSU Ag Center, the Central American Federation for the Dairy Sector (FECALAC), the IV National Agriculture Census of Honduras, the Instituto Nacional de Estadstica (INE). Additionally, interviews with key people of the dairy industry were used to determine the research design. The study made use of three different structured interview guides to collect the necessary information to accomplish the objectives of the study. The first structured interview guide was designed for large farmers, New CREL and Old CREL farmers. CREL is the acronym for milk collection and cooling centers in Spanish. The second structured interview guide was for leaders of the most important farmer associations located in the same geographical areas where the study was conducted. The third

PAGE 74

63 instrument was designed to collect information from input suppliers and extension providers working in the same geographical area of the study. The researcher accomplished objectives 1 through 5 by using a mixed methodology, descriptive statistics and content analysis from the responses gathered in the structured interview guides. The advantages of using a mixed methodology or of a combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies is beneficial to the research process. It enhances the quality of social assessment (World Bank, 2003b) and contributes to a deeper understanding of the situation being studied. Populations Three groups of farmers: a) 27 New CREL farmers, b) 14 Old CREL members, c) 10 large dairy farmers recognized as leaders by the industry, seven input suppliers and three representatives of the farmer associations comprised the samples of our study. Our study took place in the region known as the Cuenca Lechera de Honduras that comprises four geographical regions. These are the Sula Valley (SV), Atlntida Region (AT), Yoro (YO) and Coln (CO). The first two geographical regions are where the first 13 CRELs where established in Honduras. While the newer CREL where established in the four geographical regions. Large farmers were purposively selected based on the leadership they provided to the industry. To select CREL farmers, a total of 20 CRELs were chosen from a total of 63 organized at the time of the study. CRELs where randomly selected based on length of operation and location. CRELs defined as Old, had 2 years of operation while New CRELs where either in the process of formation or had recently started operating at the time of our study. Four CRELs from each region were originally selected (SV, AT, YO and CO) except for the Atlntida Region where four new and four old CRELs were

PAGE 75

64 chosen. However, interviews were not conducted in the Cuyamel CREL (SV) due to difficulties with transportation. As a result, the Salitrn CREL located in AT was added to the study. A description of the location and length of operation of each CREL is presented in Table 3-1. Table 3-1. Geographical location and length of operation of CRELs selected for the study. Group Geographical location (Department/State) Length of organization* (New/Old) Location of the CREL 1 Sula Valley Old El Zapote Sula Valley Old San Buenaventura Sula Valley Old Gualala Sula Valley Old Cuyamel ** 2 Atlntida Old Las Palmas Atlntida Old La Unin Atlntida Old Cefal Atlntida Old San Francisco 3 Atlntida New Km 17 Rd. to La Ceiba Atlntida New Esparta Atlntida New Ceibita Way Atlntida New Salitrn*** Atlntida/Coln New Lis lis 4 Yoro New Juncal Yoro New Coyoles Aldea Yoro New Calpules Aldea Yoro New Maloa 5 Coln New Corocito Coln New La Esperanza Coln New Feo Coln New Bonito Oriental Pilot test Sula Valley New Bonanza Sula Valley Old Taulab Old CRELs had been operating since 2000 and 2001. New CRELs had either started operating in 2003 or were about to start operations at the time of the study. ** CREL not interviewed. ***CREL added. Furthermore, two farmers were randomly selected from each CREL except in one CREL in the Yoro region where three farmers were interviewed. Interviews were

PAGE 76

65 conducted in CRELs or at individual farms, depending on farmers preferences. The average length of each interview was 30-45 minutes. Input suppliers included one veterinarian, two managers of agribusiness firms, one salesman and two field agents from the Instituto Nacional de Formacin Profesional (INFOP). INFOP is the largest nonformal education provider in Honduras. Regarding farmer associations, the vice-presidents from the Asociacin de Ganaderos y Agricultores de Sula (AGAS) and the Sociedad de Agricultores y Ganaderos de Olanchito (SAGO) were interviewed as well as the president of the Asociacin de Agricultores y Ganaderos de Atlntida (AGAA). Instrumentation In order to collect the necessary information to complete our study, the researcher developed an instrument for each group of participants: farmers, input suppliers and farmer organizations. The researcher developed these instruments after reviewing surveys from Holman et al. (2003) and the Macon County Survey on Improving Farm Income through the Production of Specialty Farm Products developed by faculty of the University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign. The first structured interview guide developed collected data from the two groups of farmers in reference to their perceptions of extension services, preferences in regards to educational program delivery as well as their perceptions about globalization and its effects on the dairy industry of Honduras and finally a demographic section. The instrument included an additional question for CREL members in order to gain a deeper understanding of the changes that have occurred to farmers after they had joined CRELs (See Appendix A). This instrument had four sections. The first section included questions regarding availability of extension and other support services, availability of

PAGE 77

66 training for farm workers and others in relation to milk production, preferences regarding program delivery, factors that affect participation in programs, sources and channels of information available, training priorities and a recount of positive and negative experiences regarding extension services. The second section inquired about farmers perceptions regarding farmer associations. Although this was not an objective in the study, the researcher considered it was important to document such perceptions due to the importance these organizations have as facilitators of most educational programs available and in the acquisition of funds for extension programs. The third section seeked to determine farmers perceptions regarding globalization, and the implications this event can have at the farm, as well as the local and national level. In addition, farmers were asked if any changes had been made in their farms in preparation for such event. The fourth and last section of the structured interview guide collected data on educational level, gender, family involvement in farm activities, farm location and size, breeds in the herd and the use of best management practices such as the implementation of artificial insemination, feeding concentrate, milking facilities, use of improved grass varieties and checking for pregnancy. The second structured interview guide targeted input suppliers. It was used to collect information about the type of services provided by suppliers, educational programs offered and the frequency of these, delivery methods used, felt and ascribed needs of farmers as seen by providers, limitations and barriers to education for farmers and providers, opportunities for professional development and the educational level of providers (See Appendix B).

PAGE 78

67 The third instrument was designed for farmer associations to determine the educational opportunities provided and sponsored by these associations, farmers preferences in the delivery of programs as seen by these organizations, felt and ascribed needs of farmers as seen by farmer associations, farmers involvement with the associations, the role of farmer associations in the development of the dairy sector, organizational structure within the associations, employee profiles and opportunities for professional development for them, partnerships with extension and other organizations related with the dairy industry and finally their contributions to increase farmers understanding of the Central American Free Trade Agreement known as CAFTA (See Appendix C). Face and content validity and reliability of the instruments were important considerations for the researchers to make in determining the credibility of the study. The scientific validity evidence is based on content, which can be gathered by having competent professionals who are familiar with the process of the survey examine the items to judge whether they are appropriate for measuring what they are supposed to measure (Ary et al. 2002). For this purpose, a panel of two experts from the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication and two experts from the Animal Science Department at the University of Florida and Zamorano, Panamerican School of Agriculture in Honduras reviewed the three structured interview guides for face and content validity. Validity is defined as the extent to which an instrument measures what it claims to measure. Consequently, face validity refers to an instrument or document appearing valid for its intended purpose (Ary et al. 2002). Prior to the study, a pilot test

PAGE 79

68 was conducted with the structured interview guide with four farmers in two CRELs in order to determine face validity. Our study is unique because there is limited information available to the dairy industry of Honduras and the Honduran Government about the characteristics, needs and perceptions of dairy farmers. Our study is considered pertinent by the experts involved, and will not only establish baseline data, but will provide with a better understanding of the participants` educational needs. Data Collection Procedures A review of our study by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) preceded any data collection. The IRB-02, located at the University of Florida, reviews non-medical research proposals for ethical soundness. The IRB approved the research proposal and assigned an IRB protocol number (2003-U-536) for our study. The researcher presented each participant with a translated version of the informed consent letter prior to each interview. The informed consent described the study, the researcher, and any potential risks associated with participating in the study. Additionally, participants were provided the approximate amount of time that participation in the study would require and they were informed there was no compensation for their participation. Participants opted to voluntarily participate in the study and confirmation of their acceptance of the terms in the informed consent was signing the form before the interview started. After formal approval for the IRB, data collection began. Data collection occurred during the months of June, July and August 2003. Interviews lasted from 25 to 40 minutes. Formal review of data occurred during October through April 2004. The researcher and an additional trained professional conducted the interviews to farmers. Training for the additional professional included a detailed explanation of the

PAGE 80

69 purpose and objective of the study, a thorough review of the structured interview guide for farmers and a description of the guidelines to be used during the interview. The researcher administered all of the interviews to input suppliers and farmer association representatives. Of the total population targeted for the study, 96% of the original population was interviewed due to the fact that it was not possible to interview members from one CREL in the Sula Valley Region. Data Analysis The researcher assigned individual study identification numbers to each interview guide. This was to maintain respondent anonymity. Raw quantitative data from the structured interview guides was entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. In addition, data for each farmer was carefully revised for mistakes that could have occurred while entering the data. A separate spreadsheet was created for each group of farmers. Data was then analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows Release 11.5.0 (SPSS, 2002). Descriptive statistics were determined for each variable. For the qualitative data sets, content analysis was used to determine trends and patterns in the data and draw conclusions. Content or document analysis is a research method applied to written or visual materials for the purpose of identifying specified characteristics of the material. Furthermore, content analysis focuses on analyzing and interpreting recorded material within its own content (Ary et al. 2002). In our study, the answers to open-ended questions in the structured interview guides were classified according to categories established from a preliminary review of the data. Additional categories were added if needed. Data was then organized and conclusions were drawn.

PAGE 81

70 Research objectives 1, 2 and 3 were analyzed by relying solely on the quantitative data set. Frequencies and means were determined for this purpose. The first objective was to determine farmers perceptions about extension services. Farmers` structured interview responses only were taken into account to answer objective 1. Objective 2 was to determine the educational delivery methods used in extension programs offered to dairy farmers and objective three was to determine farmers preferred delivery methods. Farmers responses as well as input suppliers and farmer organization responses were taken into account to answer these two objectives. Objectives 4 and 5 were answered by analyzing qualitative data and quantitative data sets. Frequencies and means where determined for numerical data and content analysis was used for qualitative data. The fourth objective consisted of determining felt and ascribed needs for dairy farmers in the north coast of Honduras. Structured interview guides from farmers, input suppliers and farmer associations representatives were used to answer this objective. The fifth objective was to determine farmers perceptions regarding globalization and its effects on the dairy industry in relation to educational needs. To answer objective 5, quantitative data from responses from the farmer and the farmer association structured interview guides were used to determine farmers perceptions. In addition, open-ended questions in this section were analyzed in order to assess farmers understanding of the CAFTA. Summary This chapter described our study in terms of the research design, the population of the study, the instrumentation, and data analysis procedures. In summary, this is a descriptive study of the perceptions of three groups of dairy farmers in the north coast of

PAGE 82

71 Honduras about extension services, delivery methods, and of globalization and its effects on the dairy industry in relation to educational needs. The populations under study included two groups of farmers, input suppliers and farmer associations representatives. A mixed methodology was used. Accordingly, structured interview guides were designed for each group of participants (farmers, input suppliers and farmer associations representatives). The results of our study were obtained by determining descriptive statistics such as frequencies and means on the quantitative data sets and by determining trends and patterns via content analysis for qualitative data. Chapter 4 will report the results of the study. Findings for each objective as well as the demographics of New CREL, Old CREL and large farmers will be provided.

PAGE 83

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The results of the study are presented according to the objectives identified in Chapter 1: These were to Determine the perceptions of three groups of dairy farmers about extension services. Determine educational delivery methods used in extension programs offered to dairy farmers in Honduras. Determine preferred educational delivery methods for dairy farmers in Honduras. Determine felt and ascribed educational needs for dairy farmers in the north coast of Honduras. Determine perceptions of dairy farmers on open market policies and its effects on the dairy industry in relation to educational needs. Demographics Background Information New CREL farmers were members of CRELs that were either in the process of formation or had recently started operations while Old CREL farmers were part of centers that had been operating for approximately 2 years. Large farmers had no affiliation to CRELs but were considered leaders in the same geographical areas where the CRELs are located. Selected demographic characteristics were identified for the three groups of farmers studied (New CRELs, Old CRELs and large farmers). These included gender, educational level, number of years involved in milk production and general farm management information. Results indicated that 96.3%, 92.9% of New and Old CREL members, respectively and 90% of the large farmers were male (Table 4-1). In addition, Table 4-2 reveals that 40.7% (n=11) of New CREL farmers highest level of education is 72

PAGE 84

73 in the category of 4 th to 6 th grade, while 50% of Old CREL farmers (n=7) is in the 7 th to 11 th grade range. In contrast, 60% (n=6) of the large farmer group has a college degree. Independent of educational level, 14.8% (n=4) of New CREL farmers and 14.3% (n=2) of Old CREL farmers reported they are not literate. Table 4-3 shows that of the three groups there is a large number of farmers who have been part of the industry for the last 10 to 20 years. Table 4-1. Distribution of New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farmers by Gender (n=41) New CREL farmers Old CREL farmers Large farmers Gender n % n % n % Male 26 96.3 13 92.9 9 90.0 Female 1 3.7 1 7.1 1 10.0 Total 27 100.0 14 100.0 10 100.0 Table 4-2. Educational Background of New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farmers Education level n % New CREL farmers No formal education 2 7.4 1 st 3 rd grade 5 18.5 4 th 6 th grade 11 40.7 7 11 th grade 4 14.8 College Incomplete 2 7.4 College 3 11.2 Total 27 100.0 Old CREL farmers 1 st 3 rd grade 3 21.4 4 th 6 th grade 2 14.3 7 11 th grade 7 50.0 College Incomplete 1 7.1 College 1 7.1 Total 14 100.0 Large farmers 7-11 th grade 1 10.0 College Incomplete 1 10.0 College 6 60.0 Masters 2 20.0 Total 10 100.0

PAGE 85

74 Table 4-3. Years Involved in Milk Production of New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farmers. New CREL farmers Old CREL farmers Large farmers Length n % n % n % 0-10 years 5 18.5 4 28.6 1 10.0 10-20 years 15 55.6 4 28.6 4 40.0 20-30 years 4 14.8 3 21.4 3 30.0 More than 30 years 3 11.1 3 21.4 2 20.0 Totals 27 100.0 14 100.0 10 100.0 Table 4-4. Distribution of Family Members Working Part or Full-Time on the Farm Spouse Sons Daughters n % n % n % New CREL farms Work on the farm 10 37.0 10 37.0 2 7.4 Do not work on farm 17 63.0 16 59.3 24 88.9 Not applicable* --1 3.7 1 3.7 Totals 27 100.0 27 100.0 27 100.0 Old CREL farms Work on the farm 8 57.1 8 57.1 3 21.4 Do not work on farm 6 42.9 6 42.9 11 78.6 Not applicable* ------Totals 14 100.0 14 100.0 14 100.0 Large farms Work on the farm 5 50.0 4 40.0 --Do not work on farm 5 50.0 6 60.0 10 100.0 Not applicable* -----0 Totals 10 100.0 10 100.0 10 100.0 Farmer did not have sons or daughters. In relation to work force, 85.2% of New CREL farmers, 64.3% of Old CREL farmers and 70% of large farmers work solely on their farms. In addition 37% of spouses and sons, and 7.4% of daughters of New CREL farmers work part or full-time on the farm (Table 4-4) while a slightly higher participation of family members was reported in Old CREL farms. Table 4-5 indicates that New CREL farms had on average 4.03 permanent workers (SD=2.38), Old CREL farmers employed 3.42 workers (SD=1.86) and large farmers had

PAGE 86

75 on average 7.5 permanent workers (SD=4.55). Additionally, the education level of farm workers in New and Old CREL and large farms is presented in Table 4-6. Table 4-5. Distribution of Permanent Workers per Farm in New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farms. Number of workers New CREL Old CREL Large farms n % n % n % 0-2 10 37.0 4 28.5 --3-5 8 29.6 9 64.3 4 40.0 6-8 8 29.6 1 7.2 2 20.0 9-12 1 3.8 --3 30.0 13 or more ----1 10.0 Totals 109 100.0 48 100.0 70 100.0 M 4.03 3.42 7.5 SD 2.38 1.86 4.5 Table 4-6. Educational Background of Farm Workers Education level of farm workers n % New CREL No formal education 21 19.6 1 st 3 rd grade 42 39.2 4 th 6 th grade 38 35.5 7 11 th grade 6 5.7 Total 107 100.0 Old CREL No formal education 12 25.0 1 st 3 rd grade 7 14.5 4 th 6 th grade 28 58.3 7 11 th grade 1 2.2 Total 48 100.0 Large farm No formal education 9 12.9 1 st 3 rd grade 33 47.1 4 th 6 th grade 28 40.0 Total 70 100.0 Farm Characteristics Farm characteristics of New CREL, Old CREL and large farms are presented in Table 4-7. All large farms (n=10) have access to tap water, electricity and have adequate facilities (milking parlor). On the other hand, 25.9% of New CREL farms do not have

PAGE 87

76 any type of facilities to milk cows and 37% do not have access to tap water. In contrast, 92.9% of Old CREL farms have access to tap water and approximately 85.8% of farms have at least a corral with roof and concrete floors to use for milking cows. The number of farms operating under dual-purpose systems is high, 96.3% (n=26) of new CREL and 78.6% (n=11) of Old CREL, whereas it was only 20% (n=2) of large farms. Table 4-7. Characteristics of New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farms Characteristic New CREL Old CREL Large farms n % n % n % Access to tap water 17 63.0 13 92.9 10 100.0 Access to electrical power 7 25.9 7 50.0 10 100.0 Road access 5 miles or less 23 85.2 14 100.0 6 60.0 Milking facilities Open field 7 25.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 Corral with roof 6 22.2 2 14.3 0 0.0 Corral with roof and concrete floor 14 51.9 6 42.9 0 0.0 Milking parlor 0 0.0 6 42.9 10 100.0 Totals 27 100.0 14 100.0 10 100.0 Table 4-8. Average Pasture Area (acres) on New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farms Pasture Group Acres SD New CREL 130.0 145.6 Old CREL 145.0 188.0 Large farmers 252.6 226.1 On average, pasture area is very similar between New and Old CREL farms (Table 4-8) as well as the number of cows in milk for the peak season of New and Old CREL farms is 29.3 and 32.2, respectively. However, milk production among Old CREL farms is 42% and 35.9% higher on average for the peak and low season respectively than in New CREL farms (Table 4-9).

PAGE 88

77 Table 4-9. Average Daily Milk Production and Number of Cows in Milk per Farm Group Daily Milk Production Cows in Milk Peak Low Peak Low n (lb) n (lb) n cows n cows New CREL 26 381.9 26 261.3 26 29.3 26 23.5 SD 39.2 39.6 2.6 2.6 Old CREL 14 659.8 14 407.9 14 32.2 14 24.2 SD 156.0 114.6 5.9 4.6 Large farms 9 2633.8 9 2537.2 9 94.2 9 90.6 SD 1992.1 1936.6 59.1 58.6 Table 4-10. Composition of Breeds Among New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farms Breeds n % New CREL Brown Swiss x Brahman 22 52.4 Holstein x Brahman 18 42.8 Brown Swiss 1 2.4 Gyr x Brahman 1 2.4 Total 42 100.0 Old CREL Holstein x Brahman 12 41.4 Holstein 6 20.7 Brown Swiss x Brahman 5 17.2 Brown Swiss 4 13.9 Jersey 1 3.4 Gyr x Brahman 1 3.4 Total 29 100.0 Large farm Holstein 4 20.0 Holstein x Brahman 4 20.0 Brown Swiss x Holstein 4 20.0 Brown Swiss 3 15.0 Brown Swiss x Brahman 2 10.0 Jersey 2 10.0 Other 1 5.0 Total 20 100.0 In addition, Table 4-9 indicates that milk production as well as the number of cows in milk within large farms changes decreases slightly from one season to the other. The composition of the breeds for each group is presented in Table 4-10. The crosses Holstein x Brahman and Brown Swiss x Brahman are the most prevalent in New and Old

PAGE 89

78 CREL farms. Although the Holstein x Brahman is also common in large farms there is also preference for Brown Swiss x Holstein and Holstein animals. Table 4-11. Frequency and Percentage of Adoption of Management Practices in New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farms Area Practice Chi-square New CREL Old CREL Large farms n % n % n % Pasture Management Use of improved grass varieties 5.39* 18 66.6 12 85.7 10 100.0 Fertilization 6.43* 16 59.3 11 78.5 10 100.0 Feeding and Nutrition Feed concentrate 7.65 16 59.3 12 85.7 10 100.0 Feed cows by production level 14.5* 8 29.6 7 50.0 10 100.0 Reproductive Management Artificial Insemination 9.41** 1 3.7 2 14.3 6 60.0 Check heat 9.44* 7 25.9 4 28.6 8 80.0 Check for pregnancy 24.5*** 4 14.8 3 21.4 10 100.0 Management Keep records 6.43* 16 60.3 11 78.6 10 100.0 Record type: Production 9 33.3 10 71.4 10 100.0 Health 0 0.0 2 14.3 8 80.0 Reproduction 13 48.1 10 71.4 10 100.0 Accounting 8 29.6 6 42.9 8 80.0 Inventory 3 11.1 0 0.0 5 50.0 Significant .05 ** Significant .01 *** Significant .001 Adoption of management practices known to increase milk production is lowest in New CREL farms followed by Old CREL farms (Table 4-11). In contrast, all large farms had implemented most of the management practices outlined within the structured interview guides. Objective 1 The first research objective was to determine the perceptions of each group of farmers about extension services. To determine farmers perceptions it was first necessary

PAGE 90

79 to determine the availability of extension services. The findings revealed that only 18.5% of New CREL farmers, 42.9% of Old CREL farmers and 60% of large farmers had participated in extension programs offered by DICTA. Farmers explained that DICTA had not offered programs on a permanent basis in the regions covered by our study in a long period of time. Qualitative data showed that 60% of large farmers believe DICTA is not capable of offering quality programs to them in the near future. In addition, a significant number of New CREL farmers reported negative experiences with DICTA mainly due to inexperience of field agents and lack of follow-up on programs. Despite these facts, a large percentage of farmers in the three groups reported they had participated in extension programs in the past sponsored either by public or private organizations (Table 4-12). Table 4-12. Frequency and Percentage of Farmers Who Have Participated in Public and/or Private Extension Programs Farmer Group n % New CREL farmers 26 96.3 Old CREL farmers 12 85.7 Large Farmers 10 100.0 New CREL, Old CREL and large farmers described extension services (either private or public) as short-term and sporadic. Farmers stated that extension programs have usually concentrated on specific areas i.e. pasture management, vaccination programs or artificial insemination. According to farmers, extension has not taken a holistic approach and so it has been hard to improve farm productivity if other aspects of milk production are left untouched. However, the major critique of farmers to extension programs was that they do not conduct follow-up activities. Consequently, only a small percentage of farmers in the three groups of farmers seek extension agents for information and advice (Table 4-13).

PAGE 91

80 Table 4-13. Top Three Sources of Information used by New CREL, Old CREL and Large farmers. Source of information New CREL Farmers Old CREL farmers Large Farmers n % n % n % Veterinarian 7 19.4 7 26.9 7 33.0 Salesmen 6 16.7 4 15.4 3 14.3 Consultant 1 2.8 --2 9.5 Other farmers 10 27.8 10 38.5 3 14.3 Extension agent 3 8.3 3 11.5 2 9.5 Rely on own experience 9 25.0 2 7.7 1 4.8 Magazines and Books ----3 14.3 Totals 36 100.0 26 100.0 21 100.0 Most New CREL (27.8%) and Old CREL (38.5%) farmers rely on other farmers for information and advice while 25% of New CREL farmers rely solely on their own experiences. Large farmers seek veterinarians (33%), salesmen (14.3%), other farmers (14.3%) and books and magazines from other countries (14.3%) for information and advice. In addition, farmers indicated that despite the lack of permanent extension services, sporadically there are educational programs and training offered by input suppliers and agricultural universities sponsored by farmer associations in which they receive new information. According to farmers, a large number of input suppliers such as concentrate and veterinary supply companies and farmer associations offer support services. In addition, there are short-term extension programs such as the ones conducted by NGOs such as Land OLakes and Zamorano, Panamerican School of Agriculture. INFOP, the largest nonformal education provider in the country had recently conducted training for some of the CRELs in the Atlntida Region. Consulting companies from other countries are slowly starting to emerge in the areas where the study was conducted; however, few

PAGE 92

81 farmers mentioned having received information about the services they offer. Otherwise, it was reported that there are only three well-known veterinarians in the Atlntida, Yoro and Aguan Valley Regions. Table 4-16, shows that 50% of Old CREL and large farmers consider that support services in general are doing an excellent job, and only 14.3% and 20% respectively believe support services are bad. In addition, 51.5% of New CREL farmers, 56.3% of Old CREL farmers and 10% of large farmers believe they do not need additional services (Table 4-15). According to researcher observations and interviews with input suppliers, most of the services identified by farmers in Table 4-15 are either not offered or were very weak. As it can be inferred from Table 4-14 mostly farmers, sons and workers attend educational programs; female participation is minimal. Farmers from the three groups cited lack of time, bad timing for programs and no interest in the topic as the top reasons for not attending programs. Table 4-14. Farmers Perceptions of the Quality of Support Services Group Rating n % New CREL farmers Excellent 8 29.6 Good 17 63.0 Bad 1 3.7 No experiences 1 3.7 Total 27 100.0 Old CREL farmers Excellent 7 50.0 Good 3 21.4 Bad 2 14.3 No experiences 2 14.3 Total 14 100.0 Large farmers Excellent 5 50.0 Good 3 30.0 Bad 2 20.0 No experiences 0 0.0 Total 10 100.0

PAGE 93

82 Content analysis of qualitative data showed that New and Old CREL farmers attend most educational opportunities available while large farmers were more selective of the programs they decide to attend. In this regard, the researcher observed that Old CREL farmers seek educational programs more actively than New CREL farmers. Table 4-15. Additional Support Services Needed According to Farmers Number of times identified Needs by group n % New CREL farmers Technical assistance on permanent basis 10 30.3 Consulting services 2 6.1 Artificial insemination 2 6.1 Laboratory for feed and pasture analysis 1 3.0 Research 1 3.0 No additional services needed 17 51.5 Total 33 100.0 Old CREL farmers Technical assistance on a permanent basis 7 43.9 No additional services needed 9 56.1 Total 16 100.0 Large Farmers Consulting services 3 30.0 Technical assistance on a permanent basis 3 30.0 Adaptive on farm research 2 20.0 Laboratory for feed and pasture analysis 1 10.0 No additional services needed 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0 Old CREL farmers select representatives to attend educational programs especially when these are offered in other cities and later share the findings with the rest of the members in the CREL. Old CREL farmers also stated they try to attract experts, extension programs and other individuals who can bring educational programs to the CREL. In all Old CRELs except one, farmers expressed the value of extension. In this sense, New CRELs were less organized than Old CRELs most likely due to the short time

PAGE 94

83 that had passed since they started operating and the limited attention and support services they had received at the time of our study. Table 4-16. Distribution of the Frequency and Percentage of Attendees to Extension Programs Farmer group New CREL Old CREL Large Farms n % n % n % Farmer alone 13 39.4 10 66.7 5 45.5 Spouse 4 12.1 0 0.0 0 0.00 Son 8 24.2 3 20.0 3 27.3 Workers 8 24.3 2 13.4 3 27.3 Totals 33 100.0 15 100.0 11 100.0 An important part of the human capital in rural areas is farm workers. As indicated in Table 4-15 farm workers are exposed to less training than farmers despite that fact that they do a large part of the work in the farm. Only 44% of New CREL farmers, 7.1% of Old CREL farmers and 30% of large farmers stated they send their workers to the few training programs available. In this regard, the reasons cited for lack of assistance include lack of time and bad scheduling of programs. In addition, 26.3%, 33.3% and 14.3% of New CREL, Old CREL and large farmers respectively find the level and/or delivery used in such programs inadequate for the educational level of most workers, and therefore farmers feel it is not a good use of time to send workers to training programs. Moreover contradictory reasons for not sending farm workers to programs include the fact that 10.5% of New CREL farmers and 13.3% of Old CREL farmers believe that increasing knowledge and skills of farm workers leads to: workers knowing more than the farmer and workers moving to another farm where they get paid better salaries. It can be concluded that not all farmers see training for farm workers as a positive event. On

PAGE 95

84 the other hand, an external factor such as the high turnover rate of farm employees cited by large farmers is another important factor that hinders training. Table 4-17. Percentage of Farms That Send Farm Workers to Training Programs and Reasons for the Lack of Attendance at Programs in New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farms Group Farms Reasons for lack of attendance n % % New CREL 12 44.4 Lack of time 31.6 Inadequate training 26.3 Bad schedules 15.8 Not needed 10.5 Lack of transportation 5.3 Other 10.5 Total 100.0 Old CREL 1 7.1 Lack of time 46.7 Inadequate training 33.3 Workers leave after training 13.3 Other 6.7 Total 100.0 Large Farms 3 30.0 Bad schedules 28.6 Lack of time 14.3 Workers leave after training 14.3 Inadequate training 14.3 High turnover rate 14.3 Other 14.3 Total 100.0 Despite the apparent satisfaction of farmers with current services provided, Table 4-14 shows that 81.5% (n=22) and 92.9% (n=13) of New CREL farmers and Old CREL farmers expressed that they are willing to consider paying for technical assistance as a CREL. Accordingly, 90% (n=9) of large farmers also stated they would consider paying for consulting or technical assistance services that would lead to significant increases in productivity. Objective 2 Objective 2 of the study was to determine the educational delivery methods used in extension programs offered to dairy farmers. The interviews with input suppliers,

PAGE 96

85 extension agents from INFOP, farmer associations and farmers were used to answer this objective. Table 4-18. Educational Delivery Methods Used by Providers Method Input suppliers and farmer associations (n=9) New CREL farmers (n=27) Old CREL farmers (n=14) Large farmers (n=10) N % n % n % n % Meetings 9 100.0 22 81.4 11 78.5 10 100.0 Method demonstrations 7 77.7 15 55.5 10 71.4 7 70.0 Field days 9 100.0 20 74.0 9 64.2 10 100.0 Farm visits 5 50.0 12 44.4 7 50.0 6 60.0 1 & 2 day seminars 5 66.6 10 37.0 6 42.8 8 80.0 Written media (pamphlets, brochures, magazines) 6 50.0 10 37.0 10 71.4 6 60.0 Mass media 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 One-on-one contact 4 66.6 9 33.3 8 57.1 10 100.0 Table 4-18 shows that method demonstrations, meetings and field days are the most commonly used delivery methods among the three groups of farmers. To a lesser extent, input suppliers offer 1 or 2 day seminars and extension agents mostly conduct group visits to farms. In addition, model farms had been used in the past to demonstrate technologies. Limited availability of written media such as pamphlets, booklets and magazines was reported. In addition, the usage of mass media providing information regarding milk production was not reported. Finally, one-on-one contacts from service providers and extension programs were more common with large farmers (100%) than with New CREL (33.3%) and Old CREL (57.1%) farmers according to providers. Objective 3 This objective was to determine preferred educational delivery methods of dairy farmers. The results for objective 3 are shown in Table 4-19.

PAGE 97

86 Table 4-19. Farmers Preferences Regarding Educational Delivery Methods Method New CREL farmers (n=27) Old CREL farmers (n=14) Large farmers (n=10) N % n % n % Hands-on, experiential only n 55.0 6 42.9 2 20.0 Mix of hands-on and theoretical training 7 26.0 8 57.1 8 80.0 Didnt know 5 19.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Meetings 22 81.4 11 78.5 10 100.0 Method demonstrations 15 55.5 10 71.4 7 70.0 Field days 20 74.0 9 64.2 10 100.0 Farm visits 12 44.4 7 50.0 6 60.0 1 & 2 day seminars 10 37.0 6 42.8 8 80.0 Written media (pamphlets, brochures, magazines) 10 37.0 10 71.4 6 60.0 Mass media 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 One-on-one contact 9 33.3 8 57.1 10 100.0 Farmer preferences were as follows: 55% (n=15) of New CREL farmers preferred delivery methods that used applicable, hands-on and experiential learning. In contrast 57.1% (n=8) of Old CREL farmers, and 80% (n=8) of large farmers believed a mix of practical and theoretical methods would be more adequate for programs targeted for dairy farmers. In addition, the use of reinforcement methods such as brochures, booklets and pamphlets in educational programs was mentioned by a large number of farmers. The most popular hands-on delivery methods are farm visits, field days and process demonstrations. In addition, short seminars (1 to 2 hours in length) are the most accepted method for delivery of theoretical content. Farmers noted that regardless of the method, presenters should provide some form of reinforcement method of the content covered during the program, and they should speak slowly and allot enough time for a question and answer section. Most New and Old CREL farmers expressed these are extremely important factors for them.

PAGE 98

87 Objective 4 This objective in our study is to determine felt and ascribed needs of farmers. Interviews with farmers, farmer associations representatives and input suppliers were used to answer this objective. Felt Needs A technical assistance program in general terms was seen by most New CREL farmers as a very important service they needed; although 40% (n=11) of the farmers in this group were not able to prioritize their educational needs. On the other hand, 70% (n=10) of Old CREL farmers expressed not only the need for technical assistance programs but were specific about their educational needs. Still a total of 28% (n=4) farmers in this group were not able to determine educational needs. The qualitative data analysis revealed that in contrast to New CREL farmers, Old CREL farmers expressed their educational needs from a group perspective rather than an individualistic perspective. Furthermore, Old CREL farmers stated they needed to strengthen CRELs. Old CREL Farmers considered that marketing options could contribute to this goal. Nonetheless, in this sense Old CREL farmers ignored ways extension or technical assistance programs could contribute to this objective. Large farmers were more explicit and detailed about the subject matter areas that should be covered by educational programs as well as for their needs and those of dairy farmers in general. Large farmers believe they need services provided by qualified individuals on a permanent basis. Nonetheless they see a lack of trained individuals to conduct such services in the country, especially field agents. Large farmers complained that field agents are usually very young with limited field experience and expertise, and low salaries.

PAGE 99

88 Furthermore, this group offered detailed explanations on the importance and need of establishing not only extension services for farmers but also of starting training schools or programs targeted for farm workers and herdsmen. In this regard, 30% of large farmers expressed the need to educate farm owners about the importance of developing and maintaining good relations with farm employees. Large farmers cited that farm workers are usually under paid, receive no incentives and have few benefits as farm workers. Other major issues included the need of educational programs that teach how to manage finances and credits wisely. According to farmer associations and large farmers themselves, a high percentage of dairy farmers are high in debt as a result of bad management of loans acquired in the past. Finally all large farmers expressed the need for youth programs. They stated that there is lack of pride and incentives for farmers children of continuing in the industry and consequently of future leaders. Table 4-20 lists subject matter areas that should be targeted by extension programs according to farmers. The ranking identified: pasture management, feeding and nutrition and improving milk quality as the top three priorities. This finding is not surprising since feeding and nutrition costs are the highest portion of the expenses in dairy farms in Honduras (Merino & Avila, 2000). The lack of information in regards to feeding programs for cattle added to extreme environmental conditions make the implementation of feeding programs a real challenge for most farmers in Honduras. Additionally, milk quality has become a major issue especially for New and Old CREL farmers who place milk into a single storage and cooling tank unit.

PAGE 100

89 Table 4-20. Ranking of Training Priorities of New, Old and Large Farmers Technical Areas n % New CREL farmers 1. Feeding and nutrition 9 14.8 1. Improving milk quality 9 14.8 2. Pasture management 7 11.5 3. Farm management 6 9.8 4. Animal Reproduction & Artificial Insemination 4 6.6 4. Marketing 4 6.6 5. Improving genetics 3 4.9 6. Milking procedures 2 3.3 6. Vaccination and deworming 2 3.3 7. Record keeping 1 1.6 7. Forage conservation 1 1.6 7. Forming strategic alliances 1 1.6 7. Use of electrical fences 1 1.6 Considered all important 11 18.0 Total 61 100.0 Old CREL farmers 1. Pasture management 5 16.7 2. Feeding and nutrition 4 13.3 2. Improving milk quality 4 13.3 3. Farm management 3 10.0 4. Forage Conservation 2 6.7 4. Raising replacement heifers 2 6.7 5. Reproduction and A.I. 1 3.3 5. Improving genetics 1 3.3 5. Milking procedures 5. Record keeping 1 3.3 5. Animal health 1 3.3 5. Use of electric fencing 1 3.3 Considered all important 4 13.3 Total 30 100.0 Large farmers 1. Pasture management 5 21.7 2. Feeding and nutrition 3 13.0 2. Improving milk quality 3 13.0 3. Animal reproduction and A.I. 2 8.7 3. Farm management 2 8.7 3. Use of electrical fencing 2 8.7 3. Record keeping 2 8.7 4. Milking procedures 1 4.3 4. Animal Health 1 4.3 Considered all important 2 8.7 Total 23 100.0

PAGE 101

90 CREL farmers (both new and old) in the past rarely were concerned with milk quality problems since most processing plants were less strict in that regard, and artisanal cheese makers often ignored milk quality. On the other hand, large farmers are faced with increasing competition from the growing number of CRELs, and so they are starting to be more careful about milk quality. Ascribed needs Honduran farmers in general are very reluctant to join farmer groups mainly due to negative experiences in the past. Therefore, the fact that dairy farmers have joined CRELs and have placed all their milk into one cooling tank is in itself an achievement among farmer populations. According to Old CREL farmers, CRELs offer economic and social benefits to its members that as individual farmers they would not have. Nonetheless, it was found that most CREL members have low education levels and very little formal training that could lead to successful management of CRELs in the long term. Consequently, it is imperative to strengthen the organizational capacities of CRELs in the short term in order to improve CREL chances for success in the future. In this regard, the provision of educational programs that enhance financial and resource management, accountability procedures and provide leadership skills are essential. Farmer associations are important components of the dairy industry in Honduras. Table 4-21 shows farmers perceptions regarding the benefits offered by farmer associations. According to the review of secondary data, and interviews with farmer associations and large farmers, it is acknowledged that farmer associations play an important role in the development of the industry because they are the only organizations that represent farmers interest at the local and national levels. Strengthening farmer organizations in the short-term can benefit farmers in the long-term as they are directly

PAGE 102

91 benefited or affected by the performance of these organizations. Educational training that seeks to improve organizational and leadership capabilities of board members and that seeks to train future leaders is important. Table 4-21. Frequency and Percentage of Farmers Belonging to Farmer Associations and Perceived Benefits of Membership by Farmers Farmer Associations Group Members Perceived benefits by farmers n % n % New CREL 21 77.8 Representation in the sector 7 26.9 Attend workshops 6 23.1 Commercialization of products 3 11.5 Receive new information 2 7.7 Share experiences 1 3.8 No benefits 7 26.9 Total 26 100.0 Old CREL 11 78.6 Representation in the sector 6 24.0 Commercialization of products 4 16.0 Share experiences with others 3 12.0 Buy farm supplies at lower prices 3 12.0 Receive new information 2 8.0 Attend workshops 2 8.0 Farmer insurance 1 4.0 No benefits 4 16.0 Total 25 100.0 Large Farms 10 100.0 Representation in the sector 7 31.8 Commercialize products 4 18.2 Receive new information 3 13.6 Farmer Insurance 3 13.6 Share experiences with others 2 9.1 Training for workers 1 4.5 Buy farm products at lower prices 1 4.5 No benefits 1 4.5 Total 22 100.0 Objective 5 This objective of the study was to determine perceptions of dairy farmers on open market policies, and its effects on the dairy industry in relation to educational needs. A total of 85.2% (n=23) of New CREL farmers, 71.4% (n=10) of Old CREL farmers and 100% (n=10) of large farmers reported they were aware that the Central American Free

PAGE 103

92 Trade Agreement was being negotiated at the time of our study (Table 4-22). However, the qualitative data analysis showed that only 48%, 50% and 80% New CREL, Old CREL and large farmers respectively understood that CAFTA is a commercial agreement that could affect marketing patterns of dairy products in the country. All farmers expressed that the only source of information regarding CAFTA were the newspapers. In this regard, the three farmer associations representatives interviewed confirmed that they had not offered any official information or programs to inform members of the implications of CAFTA. Furthermore, as is the case of the Asociacin de Agricultores y Ganaderos de Atlntida (AGAA), farmer organizations are responsible for actively seeking funding for extension programs and other services for farmers. For example, the Honduran Dairy Enterprise Initiative managed by Land OLakes, that introduced the concept of CRELs in the North Coast of Honduras in the year 2000 came to the area in response to the needs expressed by board members of AGAA to officials of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in late 1998. Nonetheless, 28% of New CREL farmers and 16% of Old CREL farmers see no benefits in belonging to farmer organizations (Table 4-22). Most of the New CREL farmers joined the farmer associations in their area only after learning that it was a requisite for joining a CREL. Among the reasons cited by New CREL farmers for such negative views was the lack of leadership, lack of communication of board members with farmers and poor customer service. All large farmers reported being highly worried and concerned about the implications of the treaty, even when two of the large farmers had participated in the negotiations of the treaty, they explain there was a lack of understanding of the CAFTAs implications for the Honduran dairy industry. Large

PAGE 104

93 farmers reported that due to the lack of competitiveness of the industry in general the results of negotiations would most likely affect Honduran farmers in a negative sense. In contrast, almost 30% (n=6) of New CREL farmers and 20% (n=3) of Old CREL farmers believed CAFTA would not affect their farms. Table 4-22. Farmers Understanding and Perceptions of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) Farmer Group Farmers perceptions New CREL Old CREL Large farmers n % n % n % Knows about CAFTA 23 85.2 10 71.4 10 100.0 Believe CAFTA can negatively impact his/her farm. 19 70.4 11 78.6 10 100.0 Believe CAFTA can negatively impact Honduran Dairy Industry 21 77.8 11 78.6 10 100.0 Have made changes in his/her farm in preparation for CAFTA 13 48.1 8 57.1 8 80.0 Summary This chapter presented the findings of the study. Findings were organized and presented by the following objectives: 1) Determine the perceptions of three groups of dairy farmers about extension services, 2) Determine educational delivery methods used in extension programs offered to dairy farmers in Honduras, 3) Determine preferred educational delivery methods for dairy farmers in Honduras, 4) Determine felt and ascribed educational needs for dairy farmers in the north coast of Honduras and 5) Determine perceptions of dairy farmers on open market policies and its effects on the dairy industry in relation to educational needs. Chapter 5 will present a more detailed discussion of these findings, as well as implications for the findings for the groups studied, farmer associations and extension providers.

PAGE 105

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION This chapter presents the conclusions, implications and recommendations drawn from the findings of our study. Additionally, it provides suggestions for further research that can contribute to the development of the Honduran dairy industry. One key implication of our study is that participants in our study, like many poor and small farmers in developing countries, had not been exposed to extension on a permanent basis, and therefore it was hard for many participants to envision the benefits extension offers. Consequently, it can be inferred that there is a need for permanent and reliable extension services for dairy farmers in the north coast of Honduras. In this regard, the need to address relevant issues affecting the dairy sector and the use of appropriate delivery methods is important. In addition, training related to educational program delivery would also be beneficial for current providers of nonformal education programs. Furthermore, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) has contributed to change dairy farmers attitudes toward the need for extension and support services. Discussion of Key Findings Objective 1 Objective 1 was to determine the perceptions of New CREL, Old CREL and large farmers about extension services. Results of our study indicated that each group of farmers had different experiences with extension. The quality of extension services was variable according to farmers, and 94

PAGE 106

95 so their perceptions were different. New CREL farmers had been exposed to few formal extension programs, have less access to support services and had not been exposed to services in other countries. In contrast, large farmers had seen extension and support services available to the dairy industry in countries like the U.S. and Costa Rica. New CREL farmers were, on average, less-educated, had slightly smaller farms, and almost the same number of cows. Nevertheless, they produced 38% less milk on average than Old CREL farmers. The adoption of best management practices (BMPs) known to increase milk production was lowest for this group. In addition, New CREL farmers faced to a greater extent a lack of a stable market, lower milk prices, lack of training, and limited institutional support from the Honduran government and farmer associations. In terms of the provision of extension services, New CREL farmers represent a challenging group to work with due to the many constraints they faced. On the other hand, limited exposure to extension services was characteristic of New CREL farmers; only 18.5% of farmers had participated in formal extension programs sponsored by DICTA. Furthermore, support services, sources of information, and access to research based information is almost non-existent for New CREL farmers. The fact that 27.8% of farmers rely solely upon other farmers for advice and 25% rely on their own experience rather than seek advice from someone else reflects the clear disadvantages that small and medium size dairy farmers face in Honduras. Therefore, not surprisingly, New CREL farmers perceptions of extension were shaped by the limited access to such services. New CREL farmers saw extension as short-term technical interventions and were unable to envision the wide range of activities and benefits extension could offer to them as individual farmers or as a CREL.

PAGE 107

96 Furthermore, the contradictory nature of New CREL farmers responses was intriguing --51.5% expressed that they did not need additional support services only 29.6% rated support services as excellent, and yet 81.5% of farmers were willing to consider paying for extension services as a CREL. This leads one to conclude that New CREL farmers recognize their overall need to improve productivity and milk quality, but have not participated in extension programs that promote such changes. In many ways, New CREL farmers represent a segment of the farmer population, who, although having some exposure to nonformal education programs, have not experienced potential long-term benefits. In contrast, Old CREL farmers openly sought opportunities to participate in extension programs, because they experienced its benefits in recent years. This group, unlike New CREL farmers, had a significant amount of attention and training from NGOs when the Old CREL group started operations in 2000 and 2001, despite having had limited exposure to extension services. In addition, Old CREL farmers had access to a stable milk market year-round and better milk prices since its early stages. As a result, access to better milk prices plus timely technical assistance has changed Old CREL farmers perceptions of extension and the need for continuing education. In this regard, NGOs that initially worked with Old CRELs encouraged farmers to improve milking facilities and start changes at the farm level. Most Old CREL farmers started milking cows twice a day because milk from the second milking could be stored in the CREL cooling tank, and this practice has lead to higher milk production per cow. Research has shown that this change alone can represent an increase of up to 40% in milk production per cow (Velez et al. 2002). Consequently, Old CREL farmers started having

PAGE 108

97 more interaction with support services after the initial attention from NGOs vanished because their financial situation changed dramatically. One factor that has contributed to Old CREL farmer interest in extension is the peer pressure existing among Old CREL members to maintain acceptable milk quality. According to Old CREL members, before CRELs were formed little interaction existed even among neighboring farmers. Once the CRELs started, CREL members started sharing technical problems and seeking answers as a group. For example, Old CREL farmers reported that they report to the group every time they attend an educational program in another city or town. The dynamics of most Old CRELs observed by the researcher facilitate the exchange of information, experimentation, and reinvention of BMPs for farmers in their own settings. Consequently, there is more rapid diffusion of innovations recommended among its members once CREL farmers see that recommended BMPs yields positive results. Accordingly, because of this first-hand experience Old CREL farmers are more open to expert advice and extension services. The dynamics of New and Old CREL farmers have strong similarities with the pure application of farmer-to-farmer extension described by Scarborough et al. (1997). This pure farmer-to-farmer application is often found in areas where government services are almost non-existent or recommended technologies have been inappropriate; such is the case of dairy farmers in the north coast of Honduras. Moreover, this statement is based on several facts. New CRELs have risen as a movement more than as a group. Despite the fact that it took a longer time to organize Old CRELs, New CRELs were formed from the initiative of farmers alone, thus farmers are leading and sustaining

PAGE 109

98 CRELs. Finally, Old CRELs have been formed and guided by very similar principles to the ones described by Bunch (1982), including starting small, building slowly, and developing a multiplier effect. This has contributed to the good performance and trust among CREL farmers. Nonetheless, farmer-to-farmer linkages in New CRELs were weak at the time of our study and this was most likely due to the short time elapsed since their formation. On the other hand, Old CREL farmers high level of communication and solidarity, which are characteristics of farmer-to-farmer extension, were notorious and could be crucial for the sustainability of CRELs. An implication of farmer-to-farmer networks for current and future extension providers is that these can dramatically aid in the diffusion of knowledge and technology to other farmers. The third group of farmers in our study was large farmers. Large farmers had more economic resources, a higher level of education on average, larger herds and consequently higher milk production throughout the year than New and Old CREL farmers. In addition, most large farmers had been exposed to extension and consulting services available to dairy farmers in other countries like Costa Rica and the United States. Moreover, large farmers reported having access to more sources of information than CREL farmers due to their leadership capacities and privileged status in the industry. Half of the large farmers are satisfied with the current support services available. But most of them believe current extension services, especially public sector extension, is not meeting their needs nor is it meeting most commercial farmers needs. Large farmers estimate that this situation will not change in the near future due to the bureaucracy and lack of expertise that characterizes public sector extension. In addition, the short-term

PAGE 110

99 nature of the other extension programs affects the long-term impact of most programs. Most participants in our study complained of the lack of permanent services. Short-term programs have made it difficult for extension personnel to establish rapport and trust with the farmer clientele. In addition, after programs finish, farmers are left without experts or technicians to answer questions or to contribute to solve problems. Furthermore, large farmers believe the provision of extension services for the Honduran dairy industry is complicated by 1) lack of trained professionals in the country to work in extension related positions, 2) lack of access to credit in order to implement changes at the farm level, 3) cultural traits of farmers and farm workers who are reluctant to change, and 4) lack of participation of members in general in educational programs and farmer associations. Even though our study seeks to determine farmers perceptions in regards to educational delivery of extension programs, these findings are of interest because these are factors that need to be addressed by extension (public and private), farmer associations, and the dairy industry together. Doing so will help to ensure that educational programs can have the greatest desired impact at the farm level. Objectives 2 and 3 Objective 2 of the study was to determine the educational delivery methods used in extension programs offered to dairy farmers, and objective 3 was to determine the preferred delivery methods of dairy farmers. The most common delivery methods used by extension providers in Honduras included mostly experiential methods, like method demonstrations, farm tours, field days, and workshops. Reinforcement methods used were limited to seminars and meetings, while the use of integrative methods such as pamphlets, posters, and newsletters was

PAGE 111

100 minimal. Additionally, farmers reported that most programs used only a single delivery method. In this regard, Richardson et al. (1996) stated that a delivery system should include methods, whenever possible that (1) provide desired experiential opportunities for the learner, (2) reinforce the topic for the learner, and (3) provide opportunities for the learner to integrate new information with existing knowledge and skills. Based on the above, important implications for extension and nonformal education providers include a more extensive use of delivery methods. In addition, the education level of the target audience and preferences should also be considered to avoid frustration and lack of accomplishment of objectives of educational programs. New CREL farmers have a low education level in general and limited exposure to formal and nonformal programs: 8% had no formal education, and for 20% of farmers, the highest grade attained was in the 1 st to 3 rd grade range, with 40% in the 4 th to 6 th grade range. Consequently, to provide meaningful opportunities, educational programs for New CREL farmers should be hands-on and should not be based on curricula that require high levels of literacy. Process and result demonstrations and farm visits are considered adequate delivery methods for New CREL farmers. The use of posters with large pictures or simple diagrams is a good alternative of integrative methods for New CREL farmers. Furthermore, the use of radio to transmit educational programs could be a good option to reach farmers and farm workers in remote areas. An interesting point in relation to the delivery of educational programs is that many large farmers expressed that they have seen a higher degree of interest from farmers when the programs were conducted on a farm. Accordingly, Knowles (1990)

PAGE 112

101 stated that learning for adults is facilitated when they are taught in a familiar setting. This allows newly introduced concepts to be applied to familiar settings, and as a result, facilitates participants to envision the benefits or advantages of implementing such behaviors. Not surprisingly, 55% of New CREL farmers reported preferring the use of applicable, hands-on, and experiential learning. On the other hand, most Old CREL and large farmers prefer a mix of practical and theoretical methods. Old CREL and large farmers on average had higher education levels than New CREL farmers. However, Old CREL farmers reasons for preferring a mix of hands-on experiential learning with foundational theory lies in the fact that they feel it is important to participate in all types of programs regardless of the quality of the provider or the information offered because of the lack of opportunities available in general to them. In contrast, large farmers expressed they need to understand principles behind BMPs so that they can apply it in their farms more effectively. Implications for extension in this regard include the use of a wider variety of delivery methods especially for large farmers. In addition, the level of expertise of agents working with large farmers has to be greater, because large farmers expectations are greater. Further, the development and inclusion of integrative methods such as booklets, pamphlets and posters should be considered for all educational programs regardless of the group of farmers they serve, because these are practically the only references that farmers have access to. Objective 4 This objective was to determine felt and ascribed needs of farmers. The findings of our study suggest that New CREL, Old CREL and large farmers realized their need for technical assistance services on a permanent basis. However, the

PAGE 113

102 level of exposure to extension services limited their perspective of the benefits extension services could offer. The lack of exposure to DICTAs services (18.5% of New CREL and 42.9% of Old CREL farmers respectively) are consistent with the assertions of Rivera et al. (1991) who has stated that in developing regions of the world only one out of every five farmers has access to extension resources. This finding leads one to think that DICTA may have placed more emphasis on assisting large farmers than small and less privileged farmers in the past. In this regard, Nagel (1997) has argued that extension often neglects the poorer strata and favors innovative larger farmers. The lack of equity in the provision of extension services has also been reported by Wilson (1991) in Ecuador. According to New CREL, Old CREL and large farmers, technical areas that need to be addressed by extension and educational programs are the same for all farmers. These include (1) feeding and ruminant nutrition, (2) pasture management, and (3) improving milk quality. In addition, 90% of large farmers expressed there is a need for additional support services. According to large farmers these should include: consulting services, adaptive research, and a feed and pasture analysis laboratory. The findings of our study suggest there is a need to establish or strengthen existing organizations. An office or organization could coordinate and guide the efforts to develop the dairy industry in Honduras. The New CREL facilities that had been built with support from the National Office of Sustained Rural Development (DINADERS) at the time of our study could not start operating because New CREL farmers had never negotiated contracts with processing plants. This demonstrates the lack of planning in the design and implementation of programs for small and less advantaged farmers.

PAGE 114

103 Based on the above, it is important to strengthen the organizational capacity and develop leadership skills among New and Old CREL farmers. Such skills will contribute to CREL sustainability in the future. Aggressive training programs should be introduced in New and Old CRELs to enhance financial resource management and accountability. Leading CRELs into the future will require vision, expertise, commitment, and true leadership as the times that lie ahead are expected to be difficult. The need to develop leadership skills among youth is another important aspect that needs to be addressed by extension. Youth programs in New Zealand and the United States have contributed to developing future leaders of the industry and instilling pride in children about belonging to the sector from early childhood. The participation of youth in the Honduran dairy industry is minimal according to the findings of our study. The introduction of youth programs especially to CRELs can be very beneficial for the industry. The involvement of children from a young age can contribute to the introduction of BMPs to farms, the development of leaders since a young age and consequently the evolution of a new mindset among future generations of farmers. In addition, the need to train farm workers is a major issue that could lead to positive results in the industry. The development of training programs applicable to farm workers` educational level is crucial. Farmers reported that most programs are not appropriate for farm workers. Guidelines for the delivery of educational programs aimed at farm workers should have immediate utility, show performance improvement, and maximize the use of available resources. As a result, farm owners would be encouraged to send farm workers to training programs. Due to the low education level of farm workers, it is important to conduct training programs in a climate that is collaborative,

PAGE 115

104 respectful, mutual, and informal. The implementation of programs that are developmentally paced, hands-on, that allow farm workers to test learning, and that focus on issues directly concerning them will contribute to increased interest to attend such programs. This will help change many of the negative perceptions farm owners have in regards to training for farm workers. Objective 5 Objective 5 of our study was to determine dairy farmers perceptions on open market policies and its effects on the dairy industry in relation to educational needs. Reports from the Ministry of Agriculture in Honduras and the literature review suggest that the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), the most recent free trade agreement signed by the Honduran Government with six other countries, is an event that can negatively impact the dairy industry due to the lack of competitiveness of the sector. At the time of our study, New CREL, Old CREL and large farmers had not been informed officially of the implications that CAFTA could have for the industry. Farmer association representatives declared they did not have any official information about the treaty that could be shared with members. Overall this denoted a lack of understanding regarding the real implications that CAFTA may present for New CREL, Old CREL, and large farmers. Furthermore, this demonstrated the lack of communication between the Honduran Government, farmer associations, and farmers. The only source of information that farmers mentioned about CAFTA was newspapers. Consequently, the quality of information available to farmers about such an important event is limited, potentially biased and not research based. In general, information available to producers is not applicable and relevant to their education level and needs.

PAGE 116

105 The overall lack of understanding about CAFTA denotes that educational programs for dairy farmers should not be limited to technical and organizational aspects of milk production. It is important to educate dairy farmers about the opportunities and threats that CAFTA and other events represent. Finally, despite the lack of understanding of the possible implications that CAFTA may have for the industry, awareness alone has been enough to cause many study participants to seek changing rudimentary milk production systems into more efficient production units. Many farmers are now more open to educational programs and are eager to implement changes at the farm level due to the threat that CAFTA represents to this farm businesses. Conclusions Strengthening the ability of the dairy industry in Honduras to compete domestically and in export markets is an important premise for the economic sustainability of dairy farms. In this sense, CRELs represent a breakthrough opportunity to strengthen small and medium size dairy operations in the north coast of Honduras. However, the lack of extension, adequate support services, and lack of guidance for CREL members could undermine farmers efforts to change rudimentary production systems for more efficient systems. The results of our study demonstrate there is need to strengthen technical, organizational, and leadership skills in New and Old CRELs and farmer associations. Furthermore, large farmers need extension services, but require a higher degree of specialization from providers. In addition, the introduction of youth programs and training for farm workers would be highly beneficial to the industry. Moreover, there is need to create awareness among current educational programs providers of the importance of selecting educational delivery formats and teaching methods to provide

PAGE 117

106 learning opportunities that produce the desired learning outcomes (Birkenholz, 1999). Finally, despite the negative effects that are expected from CAFTA, this event is leading dairy farmers, who were reluctant to implement changes on their farms, to actively seek extension and educational opportunities. Consequently, the dairy industry of Honduras is experiencing the need for quality extension services that are capable of bringing farmers to new levels of productivity and sustainability. Recommendations Based upon the findings and the conclusions of our study, recommendations are provided for current extension providers, farmer associations and CRELs. CRELs represent a breakthrough opportunity for extension services to positively impact the dairy industry of Honduras. Farmers are organized and committed to making CRELs successful. Furthermore, New and Old CREL farmers have positive perceptions of extension services. The provision of extension services can be greatly facilitated by these conditions. CRELs are an excellent channel for delivering extension education programs. There is need to provide unbiased, research based and applicable information to farmers. Few current sources of information have such characteristics. An extensive use of research-based information from research centers located in the tropics can contribute to this purpose. The current environment provides the grounds for private extension to contribute to the development of the dairy industry. The provision of extension services that positively impact productivity and milk quality is important. Positive results from such interventions can contribute to the competitiveness of the sector. As found in our study and in other secondary research, it is clear that the use of existing farmer-to-farmer networks in New and Old CRELs can contribute to more rapid diffusion of innovations and increase farmers participation. The strengthening of farmer-to-farmer linkages by extension providers can contribute to the sustainability of CRELs especially if extension programs continue to be short-term interventions. It is important to consider that CREL farmers can also diffuse positive and negative experiences with extension providers. Therefore, content and delivery methods should be carefully selected so that the desired educational objectives are accomplished.

PAGE 118

107 Results of our study indicate that farmer associations need to expand educational programs offerings. Farmer associations should focus on providing information regarding issues that are not addressed by other providers. If there is value in extension and educational programs there should be a more concentrated effort from farmer associations to promote educational opportunities and quality programs. Farmer associations need to have a more active role in seeking funding for long-term extension programs. Future Research Needed Additional research needed to develop CRELs and the Honduran dairy industry should include Development of CRELs into rural enterprises. The effective use of farmer-to-farmer networks existing in New and Old CRELs to diffuse innovations and new knowledge. Adaptive research in feeding and nutrition, milk quality and pasture management. Factors that can contribute to strengthening farmer associations. Development of leadership programs for the dairy industry. Establishment of youth programs and the development of curricula for such purposes. Summary Chapter 5 provided the discussion of the findings and their relation to other studies and recommendations drawn from the conclusions of the study. The remainder of the document includes the appendices and the structured interview guides for farmers, input suppliers, and farmer associations.

PAGE 119

APPENDIX A STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR FARMERS University of Florida Department of Agricultural Education and Communication Structured Interview Guide for Dairy Farmers Elena M. Toro Name ____________________ Location __________________ CREL_____________________ Date______________________ Section 1. Experiences with technical assistance and other educational programs 1. How many years have you been in the milk production business? a. ___________ 0-10 years b. __________ 10-20 years c. ___________20-30 years d. ___________ More than 40 years 2. See attached chart. 3. In your experience how do you rate extension field agents you have been in contact with? a. ____________ Excellent b. ____________ Good c. ____________ Bad d. ____________ No experiences with extension 4. Are there extension, technical assistance programs or educational opportunities in regards to milk production available on a regular basis? a. Yes ________ b. No ________ 4.1 Who attends educational programs in the farm besides from you? a. Herdsmen ________ b. Son ________ c. Daughter ________ d. Spouse ________ e. Other farm worker_______ f. I go alone ________ 108

PAGE 120

109 5. If you dont attend what are the reasons? a. Schedule ______ b. Lack of time ______ c. Topics are not interesting to me ______ d. I dont understand the content ______ e. I dont like the people offering the program ______ f. I have had bad experiences in the past ______ g. There is no relationship between my problems and the technologies presented ______ h. I dont have a means of transportation ______ i. I did not receive an invitation or notice on time ______ j. Agents lack expertise and experience ______ 6. Are there technical assistance or educational programs available on a regular basis for farm workers? a. Yes _______ b. No _______ 7. If your farm workers dont attend what are the reasons? a. Lack of time ______ b. I dont give them permission ______ c. Negative experiences in the past ______ d. Schedules and places are not convenient ______ e. Transportation is not available ______ f. Content is too complex for workers to understand ______ g. I dont agree with the delivery methods used ______ 8. Do you encourage your workers to attend workshops and training programs relating to dairy? a. Yes_______ b. No________ 9. Who do you talk or consult with when you need advise about managing your herd? a. Veterinarian _______ b. Salesmen _______ c. Magazine _______ d. Other farmers _______ e. Consultant _______ f. Agents from DICTA _______ g. Private extension agents _______ h. Farmer association agent _______ i. Internet _______ 10. Where do you buy supplies for your farm? ___________ ___________

PAGE 121

110 11. How often do you go to the supply store? ___________ per month Do they offer you educational pieces or pamphlets? Yes_____ No_____ Are you satisfied with their services? _________ Would you like to have access to other type of services? Yes_____ No_____ 12. What do you feel should be the 3 top priorities of extension programs in regards to training for dairy farmers? Topic Ranking a. Improved forages b. Feeding and nutrition c. Reproduction d. Dairy herd management e. Harvesting and storage f. Raising replacements g. Vaccinations and deworming h. Milk quality i. Milking procedures j. Electrical fencing and rotational grazing k. Keeping and using farm records l. Marketing options m. Strategic alliances n. Marketing and milk prices Section 2. Farmer Organizations 13. Are you a member of the farmer association? a. ________ Yes b. ________ No 14. If not, why not? ____________________________________________________ 15. What benefits do you have as a member of farmer organizations? a. Buy agricultural supplies at lower prices _______ b. Commercialization of products _______ c. Representation in the sector _______ d. Access to new information on a regular basis _______ e. Participation in conferences and seminars _______ f. Opportunities to share experiences with others _______ g. Training for farm workers _______ h. Insurance _______ i. No benefits _______ 16. Do you know of any programs that DICTA has in this region regarding milk production? a. Yes _______ b. No _______

PAGE 122

111 16a. If yes, have you participated on them? a. Yes _______ b. No _______ 17. Would you be willing to pay for consulting services or any other type of professional services that could improve the productivity of your herd? a. Yes ______ b. No ______ 18. If you are willing to pay for services, how much would you pay per cow? a. ________________________ Section 3. Globalization and its effects 19. Do you know what the term globalization or open markets means? a. Yes ______ b. No ______ 20. What does the term globalization mean or imply to you? a. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 21. Do you think globalization will affect your farm? a. Yes _____ b. No _____ c. Doesnt know _____ 22. Do you think globalization will affect the dairy industry of Honduras? a. Yes _____ b. No _____ c. Doesnt Know_____ 23. Have you made changes in your farm to prepare for possible effects of globalization? a. Yes _____ b. No _____ c. Doesnt know _____ Section 4. Demographics 24. On average how many employees work permanently on the farm? a. 0 ___________ b. 1-3 ___________ c. 4-6 ___________ d. 7 ___________

PAGE 123

112 25. What is the average education level of your employees? a. No school ________ b. 1 st 3 rd grade ________ c. 4 th 6 th grade ________ d. Some High School ________ e. High School ________ 26. How many of them read and write fluently? ________ 27. What is the highest level of education you completed? a. No school ________ b. 1 st 3 rd grade ________ c. 4 th 6 th grade ________ d. Some High School ________ e. High School ________ f. Some college ________ g. College ________ h. Graduate School ________ 28. Do you know how to read and write fluently? a. Yes ________ b. No ________ 29. Does your spouse work on the farm? a. Yes _______ b. No _______ 30. Does your daughter (s) work in the farm? a. Yes _______ How many? _______ b. No _______ 31. Does your son (s) work in the farm? a. Yes _______ How many? _______ b. No _______ 32. Are records kept in your farm? a. Yes ______ b. No ______ 33. Who is responsible for keeping them? ________ 34. If yes what type? a. Production _____ b. Health _____ c. Reproduction _____

PAGE 124

113 d. Accounting _____ e. Inventory _____ 35. Do you have off farm employment? a. Yes ________ b. No ________ 36. How many hours weekly do you spend working in matters related to the dairy farm? a. __________________ 37. What other agricultural and livestock activities are you involved in? a. ______________________ b. ______________________ c. ______________________ 38. How much land area do you have under the following categories: a. Pastures ________ mz b. Crops _________mz c. Forest _________mz d. Other _________ _________mz e. No arable land _________mz Farm Information 39. What production system do you use? a. Dual purpose _______ b. Pure breed _______ 40. How many cows do you milk on average during the peak season? __________ 41. What is your average milk production during the peak season __________liters 42. How many cows do you milk on average during the low season? __________ 43. What is your average milk production during the low season __________liters 44. What breeds/crosses do you have in your herd? a. Holstein ________ b. Jersey ________ c. Brown Swiss ________ d. Holstein x Brahman ________ e. Brown Swiss x Brahman ______ f. Gyr x Brahman ________ g. Santa Gertrudis ________ h. Other ________ 45. Has your milk been rejected because of quality problems?

PAGE 125

114 a. Yes ____________ b. No ____________ 46. Where do you milk your cows? a. Open corral, no concrete __________ b. Roofed area in corral __________ c. Roofed area with concrete floors __________ d. Modern milking parlor __________ Note for IRB: (1 manzana = 7000 m 2 ) 47. Can you recall the following information regarding improved varieties of grasses in your farm a. Number of manzanas (mz) _______ mz b. How many of these manzanas did you fertilize last year _______ mz c. On average how much fertilizer did you applied per mz last year _______ kg/mz d. How many mz with improved pastures are under irrigation? _______ mz 48. Can you recall the following information regarding native grasses in your farm a. Number of manzanas (mz) _______ mz b. How many of these manzanas did you fertilize last year? _______ mz c. On average how much fertilizer did you applied per mz last year _______ kg/mz d. How many mz with improved pastures are under irrigation? _______ mz Animal Nutrition and feeding 49. Do you separate your cows into different groups for feeding management? a. Yes _______ b. No _______ 50. Do you feed concentrates to cows? a. Yes _____ b. No _____ 50a. How do you determine how much concentrate to feed your cows? a. By milk production ______ b. By protein content in the concentrate ______ c. Recommendations from veterinary ______

PAGE 126

115 d. Recommendations from sales person ______ e. Educated guess ______ Animal Health and Reproduction 51. To get your cows pregnant you use a. Bull ___________ b. AI ___________ c. Both ___________ 52. What method is used for heat detection? a. Visual ________ b. Steer ________ 53. Do you do pregnancy checking? a. Yes __________ b. No __________ 54. What are the most common diseases found in production cows? a. Digestive upsets ________ b. Problems with parasites ________ c. Problems with reproduction ________ d. Problems with mastitis ________ e. Feet and legs ________ f. Other problems ________ 55. What are the most common diseases found in calves? a. Problems with parasites ____________________ b. Problems with diarrheas ____________________ c. Others ____________________ Additional Information 56. Road access to your farm is a. 0 km ________ b. 5-10 km ________ c. More than 10 km ________ 57. Do you have access to electricity? a. Yes _______ b. No _______ 58. Do you have access to tap water? a. Yes ________ b. No ________

PAGE 127

116 59. What changes have you and fellow CREL members experienced after joining the CREL? a. ________________________________________ b. ________________________________________ c. __________________________________________ 60. Is there any additional information that you would like to share with us? a. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 61. Where is your farm located? a. Town ______________ b. State ______________ In name of the team conducting this research project we want to thank you for your time and patience to fill in this survey.

PAGE 128

117 2.Can you recall the following information about extension programs in which you have participated. Program name Delivery methods used (See list below) Delivery methods preferred Topics covered A1 B1 C1 Delivery methods a. Personal visits k. Videos b. Classroom instruction/ Lectures c. Demonstrations (Method or result) d. On-farm test e. Seminars f. Field days g. Tours to other farms h. Newspaper i. Magazines j. Booklets End of Interview

PAGE 129

APPENDIX B STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR INPUT SUPPLIERS University of Florida Department of Agricultural Education and Communication Structured Interview Guide for Input Suppliers Elena M. Toro Name ______________________ Company ______________________ Date ______________________ 1. How many dairy farmers do you work with? a. _______________ 2. What types of services/programs do you offer dairymen? a. Consulting ___________ b. Sales ___________ c. Training ___________ d. Other ___________ 3. How frequent are your contacts with dairymen? a. Daily ___________ b. Weekly ___________ c. Monthly ___________ d. Yearly ___________ 4. What is the educational level of farmers you work with? a. No school ___________ b. 3 rd Grade ___________ c. 6 th grade ___________ d. High School ___________ e. Some college ___________ f. College ___________ 5. What methods do you use to bring new knowledge to dairymen? a. Process demonstrations _______ b. Result Demonstrations _______ c. Classroom instruction _______ d. Workshops _______ e. Seminars/conferences _______ f. Field Days _______ g. One on one _______ 118

PAGE 130

119 h. Visits to other farms _______ i. Other ______________ 6. Which methods work best with dairy farmers? a. Process demonstrations _______ b. Result Demonstrations _______ c. Classroom instruction _______ d. Workshops _______ e. Seminars/conferences _______ f. Field Days _______ g. One on one _______ h. Visits to other farms _______ i. Other _____________ 7. Which methods have not worked with dairy farmers? a. Process demonstrations _______ b. Result Demonstrations _______ c. Classroom instruction _______ d. Workshops _______ e. Seminars/conferences ______ f. Field Days ______ g. One on one ______ h. Visits to other farms ______ i. Other ______________ 8. What educational needs have farmers expressed to you? a. ______________________________ b. ______________________________ c. ______________________________ d. ______________________________ 9. What unexpressed educational needs do farmers have? a. ______________________________ b. ______________________________ c. ______________________________ d. ______________________________ 10. What limitations or barriers to participation do farmers face when seeking educational programs? a. _______________________________ b. _______________________________ c. _______________________________

PAGE 131

120 11. What limitations do you have when conducting programs or transferring new knowledge to dairymen? a. _______________________________ b. _______________________________ c. _______________________________ 12. Please indicate your educational level. a. High School ____________ b. Some college ____________ c. College ____________ d. Masters ____________ e. Ph.D. ____________ f. Veterinarian ____________ 13. Indicate your years of experience working in milk production. a. 1 year or less ____________ b. 3 years or less ____________ c. 5 years or less ____________ d. 10 years or less ____________ e. 15 years or less ____________ f. More than 15 years ____________ 14. What activities do you carry out for professional development and how often? Activity Frequency (Times during a year) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. End of the Interview Thank you for your participation in this study!

PAGE 132

APPENDIX C STRUCTURED INTERVIEW FOR FARMER ASSOCIATIONS REPRESENTATIVES University of Florida Department of Agricultural Education and Communication Structured Interview Guide for Farmer Associations Representatives Elena M. Toro Name ______________________ Date ______________________ 1. Name of the Association a. AGAS ____ b. AGAA ____ c. AGAO ____ d. FENAGH ____ e. Others ____ 2. Number of members who are dairy farmers a. _________________ 3. What services does the Association provide to members who are dairy farmers? a. Technical Assistance Programs ______ b. Other educational opportunities ______ c. Training for personnel ______ d. Sale of Ag products ______ e. AI ______ f. Other ___________________________ 4. How many educational programs did the association offered last year to dairy farmers? a. _____________________________ 5. What other opportunities do dairy farmers have to interact and learn about new technologies in the Association? a. ____________________________ b. ____________________________ c. ____________________________ 6. What methods are most commonly used to deliver programs? a. Process demonstrations ______ b. Result Demonstrations ______ 121

PAGE 133

122 c. Classroom instruction ______ d. Workshops ______ e. Seminars/conferences ______ f. Field Days ______ g. One on one ______ h. Farm visits ______ i. Other ______________ 7. Which methods work best with dairy farmers? a. Process demonstrations ______ b. Result Demonstrations ______ c. Classroom instruction ______ d. Workshops ______ e. Seminars/conferences ______ f. Field Days ______ g. One on one ______ h. Farm visits ______ i. Other ______ 8. Which methods have not worked with dairy farmers? a. Process demonstrations ______ b. Result Demonstrations ______ c. Classroom instruction ______ d. Workshops ______ e. Seminars/conferences ______ f. Field Days ______ g. One on one ______ h. Farm visits ______ i. Other ______________ 9. What educational needs have farmers expressed to you? a. ______________________________ b. ______________________________ c. ______________________________ d. ______________________________ 10. Do you feel there are needs farmers have not expressed? a. ______________________________ b. ______________________________ c. ______________________________ d. ______________________________

PAGE 134

123 11. How would you rate the attendance of dairymen to programs the association offers? a. Excellent ___________ b. Very good ___________ c. Good ___________ d. Poor ___________ e. Very poor ___________ 12. If attendance is not excellent name 3 top reasons for low attendance. a. _______________________________ b. _______________________________ c. _______________________________ 13. How can farmers participation in educational programs be improved? a. _______________________________ b. _______________________________ c. _______________________________ 14. What motivates farmers to attend educational programs? a. _______________________________ b. _______________________________ c. _______________________________ 15. What are the 3 top reasons why dairymen do not implement what they learn in technical interventions? a. _______________________________ b. _______________________________ c. _______________________________ 16. How many individuals with the following academic titles are hired by the Association to work with dairymen? a. Agronomer ________ b. Ingeniero Agrnomo ________ c. Veterinarian ________ d. Masters ________ 17. Does the association provide opportunities for professional development to its employees? a. Yes _______ b. No _______ 18. Do you network with other extension programs and NGOs? a. Yes ________ b. No ________

PAGE 135

124 19. If the answer is yes, who are these organizations? a. _____________________________ b. _____________________________ c. _____________________________ 20. Do you work closely with SENASA? a. Yes _________ b. No _________ 21. If yes, how do dairymen benefit from this relation? a. _______________________ b. _______________________ c. _______________________ 22. Do you work closely with DICTA? a. Yes _________ b. No _________ 23. If yes, how do dairymen benefit from this relation? a. _______________________ b. _______________________ c. _______________________ 24. If no, why dont you work with DICTA and SENASA? a. ___________________________________________________ b. ___________________________________________________ 25. Do you work with commercial suppliers? a. Yes __________ b. No __________ 26. If yes, how do dairymen benefit from this relation? a. _______________________ b. _______________________ 27. What is the Association doing to help farmers face CAFTA? a. ______________________________________________________ b. ______________________________________________________ c. ______________________________________________________ End of the Interview Thank you for your participation

PAGE 136

LIST OF REFERENCES Antholt, C.H. (1991). Agricultural extension in the 21 st Century: Lessons from South Asia. In W.M. Rivera & D.F. Gustafson (Eds.), Agricultural extension: Worldwide institutional evolution and forces for change (pp. 203-216). New York, NY: Elsevier Science Publishing Company. Apps, J.W. (1993). Leadership for the next age. Journal of Extension. 31,2. Retrieved October 10 th 2003 from http://www.joe.org/joe/1993summer/tp1.html Argel, P. (1999). Caracterizacin de sitios con potencial de adopcin de germoplasma forrajero mejorado por pequeos y medianos productores de doble propsito en Honduras. Costa Rica: CIAT. Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education (6 th ed.) USA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning. Axinn, G.H. (1988). Guide on Alternative Extension Approaches. Rome: FAO. Axinn, G. H.; & Axinn, N. W. (1997). Collaboration in international rural development: A practitioners handbook. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publication Inc. Balanko-Dickson, G. (2001). Choosing the right demographic data. Retrieved February 20, 2004 from http://www.sbishere.com/print.html/325 Barbuto, J.E., & Etling, A.W. (2002). Leadership development training in extension: A research-based curriculum design. Proceedings from the 18 th Annual Conference of the Association of International Agricultural Education and Communication, USA, 21-28. Barer-Stein, T., & Draper, J. (1993). The craft of teaching adults. Malabar, Fl: Krieger Publishing Co. Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stogdills handbook of leadership: Theory, research and managerial applications (3 rd ed.), New York: The Free Press. Bazik, M., & Feltes, D. (1999). Defining your costumer profilean essential tool. Journal of Extension, 37, 6. Retrieved February 20 th 2004 from http://www.joe.org/joe/1999december/a4.html Benor, D., & Harrison, J.Q. (1977). Agricultural extension: The training and visit system. Washington, DC: The World Bank. 125

PAGE 137

126 Bielema, C., & Sofranko, A. (1983). Determining needs of a hard-to-reach audience. Journal of Extension, 21, 1. Retrieved February 20 th 2004 from http://www.joe.org/joe/1983january/a1.html Birkenholz, R.J. (1999). Effective adult education. Danville, IL: Interstate publishers. Bruening, T.H., Radhakrislma, R.B., & Rollins, T.J. (1992). Environmental issues: Farmers perceptions about usefulness of informational and organizational sources. Journal of Agricultural Education: 33-2, 34-42. Bunch, R. (1982). Two ears of corn, A guide to people-centered agricultural improvement, Oklahoma: World Neighbors. Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Camara Nacional de Productores de Leche. (2004). Informacin del Sector Lechero de Costa Rica. Retrieved June 10th, 2004 from http://www.proleche.com/proleche/info_sector.htm Carrasco, A., & Acker, D. (2003). Early experience with a new program for rural development in Honduras. Proceedings of the 19 th Annual Conference of the Association of International Agricultural Education and Communication, USA, 115-125. Caviglia-Harris, J.L. (2001) Sustainable agricultural practices in Rondnia, Brazil: Do local farmer organizations impact adoption rates? Retrieved May 10th, 2004 from Salisbury University, Department of Economics and Finance Web site: http://weber.ucsd.edu/~carsonvs/papers/70.doc Chamala, S., & Shingi, P.M. (1997). Establishing and strengthening farmer organizations. In B.E. Swanson, R.P. Bentz, & A.J. Sofranko (Eds.), Improving Agricultural Extension: A reference manual (pp. 193-202). Rome: FAO. De Hann, C. (1999). Future challenges to international funding agencies in pastoral development: An overview. Retrieved May 29 th 2004 from http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/ardext.nsf/26ByDocName/FutureChallengestoInternationalFundingAgenciesinPastoralDevelopment/$FILE/ircinternational.pdf DICTA. (2004). Informacin Institucional. Retrieved February 10th, 2004 from http://www.sag.gob.hn/dicta/institucional.htm FAO. (2000). Food insecurity: when people live with hunger and fear starvation (The state of food insecurity in the world report). Rome: FAO. FAO. (1999). Small farmer group associations: Bringing the poor together. Paper presented at the FAO E-mail Conference on Small Farmer Group Associations (SFGAs). Paper retrieved June 15 th 2004 from http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/SUSTDEV/PPdirect/PPfo0013.htm

PAGE 138

127 FAO. (1997). La municipalizacin del desarrollo rural en Amrica Latina: Situacin actual y perspectivas. Paper presented at the Seminario internacional El espacio municipal: nuevos desafos y posibilidades para el desarrollo rural con participacin ciudadana. Cochabamba, Bolivia. FAO. (1990). Report of the Global Consultation on Agricultural Extension. Rome: FAO. FAOSTAT. (2004). Major food and agricultural commodities and producers. Retrieved January 28 th 2004 from http://www.fao.org/es/ess/top/country.jsp?lang=EN&country=95 Farrington, J. (1997). The role of nongovernmental organizations in extension. In B.E. Swanson, R.P. Bentz, & A.J. Sofranko (Eds.), Improving Agricultural Extension: A reference manual (pp. 213-220). Rome: FAO. Feder, G., Willett, A., & Zijp. (2001). Agricultural extension: Generic challenges and the ingredients for solutions. In S. Wolf and D. Zilberman (Eds.), Knowledge generation and technical change: Institutional innovation in agriculture (pp.313-356). Boston: Kluwer. Fresco, L. (2000). Scientific and ethical challenges in agriculture to meet human needs. Food nutrition and agriculture, 27, 4-11. Galetto, A. (1996). Opciones de polticas para la ganadera de leche en Honduras. Tegucigalpa: Secretara de Recursos Naturales. Gasperini, L., & Maguire, C. (2002). Targeting the rural poor: the role of education and training. Paper presented at The International working group in Education. Retrieved June 1 st ,2004 from http://www.fao.org/sd/2002/kn0301a_en.htm Haug, R. (1991). Public-private cooperation: Farmer-led research/extension circles in Norway. In W.M. Rivera & D.F. Gustafson (Eds.), Agricultural extension: Worldwide institutional evolution and forces for change (pp. 71-78). New York, NY: Elsevier Science Publishing Company. Hermosilla, A., & Macas, D. (2002). PROMOSTA: Seeding hope in Honduras. Retrieved March 10 th 2004 from http://www.sustdev.org/agriculture/Features/f11.06.01.shtml Holmann, F. (2001). Milk market of small-scale artisan cheese factories in selected livestock watersheds of Honduras and Nicaragua. Journal of Livestock Research for Rural Development. Retrieved June 5, 2004 from http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd13/1/holm131.htm Hulme, D. (1991). Agricultural extension services as machines: The impact of the training and visit approach. In W.M. Rivera & D.F. Gustafson (Eds.), Agricultural extension: Worldwide institutional evolution and forces for change (pp. 217-230). New York, NY: Elsevier Science Publishing Company.

PAGE 139

128 IADB. (2002). Turning disaster into opportunity. Retrieved January 20 th 2004 from http://www.iadb.org/idbamerica/index.cfm?thisid=649 IFAD. (2004). Appropriateness of the Training and Visit Extension Method for Rainfed Agriculture. Retrieved June 2 nd 2004 from http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/public_html/eksyst/doc/lle/pn/l097tece.htm IFAD. (1996). The campesino a campesino movement: Farmer-led, sustainable agriculture in Central America and Mexico (Development Report No.10). Monroe, OR: Holt-Gimenez, E. IICA. (2003). Anlisis de la Cadena de los Productos Lcteos en Honduras. Elementos para la concertacin de un plan de accin para el mejoramiento de su competitividad. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: Secretaria de Agricultura y Ganadera/USDA/IICA. INE. (2002). Reporte Estadstico. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: INE. INE. (1993). IV Censo Nacional Agropecuario. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: INE ISNAR. (2002). Strengthening the role of farmers organizations in technology development and transfer. Retrieved June 1st, 2004 from http://www.isnar.cgiar.org/publications/briefing/bp15.htm Israel, G., & Ilvento, T. (1995). Everybody wins: Involving youth in community needs assessment. Journal of Extension, 33, 2. Retrieved February 20 th 2004 from http://www.joe.org/joe/1995april/a1.html IUF. (1997). Scope for new alliances: rural workers and peasants. Retrieved May 10 th 2004 from http://www.tgwu.org.uk/TGWUInternatEd/Scope%20for%20New%20Alliances.doc Jara Almonte, M. (1999). Rehabilitacin y reactivacin de la ganadera de leche en Honduras. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: IICA. Jazairy, Y. (1992). The State of World Rural Poverty: An inquiry into its causes and consequences. New York: International Fund for Agricultural Development. Jones, G.E., & Garforth, C. (1997). The history, development, and future of agricultural extension. In B.E. Swanson, R.P. Bentz, & A.J. Sofranko (Eds.), Improving Agricultural Extension: A reference manual (pp.3-12). Rome: FAO. Kaimowitz, D. (1991). The evolution of links between research and extension in developing countries. In W.M. Rivera & D.F. Gustafson (Eds.), Agricultural extension: Worldwide institutional evolution and forces for change (pp. 101-112). New York, NY: Elsevier Science Publishing Company.

PAGE 140

129 Kalambokidis, L. (2004). Identifying the public value in extension programs [Electronic version]. Journal of Extension, 42. Knowles, M.S. (1990). The Adult learner: A neglected species. Houston, TX: Gulf. Kotter, J.P. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management. New York: Free Press. Lionberger, H.F., & Gwin, P.G. (1982). Communication strategies: a guide for agriculture. Danville: Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc. Llamb, L., & Lindemann, T. (2001). State reforms and the decentralization of the agricultural and rural public sector: Lessons from the Latin American experience. Retrieved June 10 th 2004 from http://www.fao.org/sd/2001/IN0502a_en.htm LSU Ag Center. (2002). A case study of the dairy industry of Honduras (Honduras Agricultural Reconstruction and Strategic Planning Report). Baton Rouge, LA: Zapata, H., & Ortego, A. Maalouf, W.D., Contado, Adhikarya, R., & Contado, T. (1991). Extension coverage and resource problems: The need for public-private cooperation. In W.M. Rivera & D.F. Gustafson (Eds.), Agricultural extension: Worldwide institutional evolution and forces for change (pp. 59-70). New York, NY: Elsevier Science Publishing Company. Marsh, S., & Pannell, D. (1999). Agricultural Extension: A decade of change (Short paper No. 66). Retrieved June 20 th 2004 from http://www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/shortreps/sr66.html McCaslin, N.L., & Tibezinda, J.P. (1997). Assessing target group needs. In B.E. Swanson, R.P. Bentz, & A.J. Sofranko (Eds.), Improving Agricultural Extension: A reference manual (pp.39-46). Rome: FAO. Meltzer, J. (2001). Assessment of the political, economic, and institutional contexts for participatory rural development in post-Mitch Honduras (section 1). Retrieved May 10th, 2004 from http://rds.org.hn/docs/listas/agricola/documentoeng/section1/seccionI_3_4_1.html Merino, N. & Avila, T. (2000). Diagnstico de la ganadera en el Litoral Atlntico de Honduras. Unpublished Ingeniero Agrnomo thesis, Escuela Agrcola Panamericana, Zamorano, Honduras. Mott, C. (2002). University of Florida extensions facultys perceptions of adult education needs and subsequent development of a needs based adult learning I Instructional web module. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Florida.

PAGE 141

130 Nagel, U.W. (1997). Alternative approaches to organizing extension. In B.E. Swanson, R.P. Bentz, & A.J. Sofranko (Eds.), Improving Agricultural Extension: A reference manual (pp.13-20). Rome: FAO. Nagel, U.W., Baas, S., Chiyanika, P., Eckert, S., Edsen, J., Geiger, M., Laue, R., Lubke, G., & Marbach, H. (1992). Developing a participatory extension approach: A design for Siavonga district, Zambia. Berlin: Center for Advanced Training in Agricultural Development. Northouse, P. (2001). Leadership theory and practice (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Overseas Development Institute. (1992). Conflicts or complimentaries? The state and NGOs in the colonization zones of San Julian and Berlin, eastern Bolivia (Agriculture Research and Extension Network Paper No.37). London: Ayers, A.J. Overseas Development Institute. (1991). Protected horticultural systems in the Bolivian Andes: A case study of NGOs and inappropriate technology (Agriculture Research and Extension Network Paper No.29). London: Kohl, B. Proost, J., & Duijsings, P. (1991). Going dutch in extension: 10 years of experiences with privatized extension in the Netherlands. Retrieved February 10 th 2004 from: http://Wbln 00 18. WorldBank. org /Essd/susint .nsf/a876 cbacda 716 c9 d 85256 ab 40002d5cd /3c495213 d 5603b4e8525a0300650a0a?openDocument. Qamar, M.K. (2000). Agricultural extension at the turn of the millennium: trends and challenges; Human resources in agricultural and rural development. Rome: FAO. Quizon, J., Feder, G., & Murgai, R. (2000). A note on the sustainability of the farmer field school approach to agricultural extension. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Rasmussen, W.D. (1989). Taking the university to the people: The first seventy-five years. Ames: Iowa State University. Richardson J. (1996). Extension education: process and practice. Targeting audiences in developing program delivery systems. Retrieved March 30 th 2003 from North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Web site: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/resources/education/sd5/ Richardson, J., Jenkins, D.M., & Crickenberger, R.G. (1996). Extension education: Process and practice. Program delivery methods. Retrieved March 30th, 2003 from North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Web site: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/resources/education/sd6/ Rivera, W.M. (2003). Private sector participation in extension. Paper presented at the African regional conference on Transforming Agricultural Extension in Africa, Ghana, Accra.

PAGE 142

131 Rivera W. M. (1997). Confronting the Global Market: Public sector agricultural extension reconsidere. Retrieved May 12 th 2004 from University of Maryland at College Park Web site: http://www.agnr.umd.edu/users/rivera/cr1.htm Rivera, W.M. (1996). Agricultural Extension in Transition Worldwide: Structural, Financial and Managerial Strategies for Improving Agricultural Extension. Public Adminstration and Development, 16, 151-161. Rivera, W. M. (1995). Human Resources Development in the Agriculture Sector. Retrieved June 1 st 2004 from University of Maryland at College Park Web site: http://www.agnr.umd.edu/users/rivera/1.htm Rivera, W. M. & Cary, J. (1997). Privatizing Agricultural Extension Worldwide: Institutional changes in funding and delivering agricultural extension. Retrieved May 12 th 2004 from University of Maryland at College Park Web site: http://www.agnr.umd.edu/users/rivera/fao1.htm Rivera, W.M., & Gustafson, D.F. (Eds.). (1991). Agricultural extension: Worldwide institutional evolution and forces for change. New York, NY: Elsevier Science Publishing Company. Rivera, W.M., Qamar, M.K., & Van Crowder, L. (2001). Agricultural and rural extension worldwide: Options for institutional reform in the developing countries. Rome, Italy: FAO Rogers, A. (1996). Teaching Adults. New York, NY: Redwood Books. Rola, A. C., Jamias, S.B. & Quizon, J.B. (2002). Do farmer field school graduates retain and share what they learn? An investigation in Iloilo, Philippines. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 9(1). Rondinelli, D.(1981). Government Decentralization in Comparative Perspective: Theory and Practice in Developing Countries" International Review of Administrative Science, 47. SACRED-AFRICA (2003). The role of NGOs and farmer associations in innovative organic resource management in Kenya. Retrieved June 10 th 2004 from http://www.acts.or.ke/sacred/Report%20-%20NGOs.pdf Sandmann, L.R., & Vandenberg, L. (1995). A framework for 21 st century leadership. Journal of Extension 33,6. Retrieved September 14, 2003 from http://www.joe.org/1995december/a1.html Scarborough, V., Killough, S., Johnson, D.A., & Farrington, J. (Eds.). (1997). Farmer-Led Extension. London: SRP Exeter.

PAGE 143

132 Schwartz, L.A., & Zipj, W. (1994). Private and public roles in delivery of extension services. Proceedings of the International Symposium: Public and private roles in the provision of agricultural support services, Costa Rica, 95-126. Seevers, B., Graham, D., Gamon, J., & Conklin, N. (1997). Education through cooperative extension. New York: Delmar Publishers. Stedman, N. (2004). Leadership, volunteer administration and 4-H: Leadership styles and volunteer administration leadership competence of 4-H state volunteer specialists and county faculty. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida. Swanson, B., Samy, M., & Sofranko, A. (2003). The New Agricultural Economy: Implications for extension programs. Proceedings of the 19 th Annual Conference of the Association of International Agricultural Education and Communication, USA, 641-647. Swanson, B.E., Bentz, R. P., & Sofranko, A.J. (Eds.). (1997). Improving Agricultural Extension: A reference manual. Rome: FAO. Tadesse, G. (2003). The Future of Agricultural and Extension Education: Trends and policies worldwide. Proceedings of the 19 th Annual Conference of the Association of International Agricultural and Extension Education, USA, 648-658. Umali, D.L., Feder, G., & de Hann, C. (1994). Public and private sector roles in the delivery of livestock sector. Proceedings of the International Symposium: Public and private roles in the provision of agricultural support services, Costa Rica, 129-147. Umaa, V. (1998). Comercio de productos lcteos en Centroamrica. La Ganadera e Industrias afines en Centroamrica. Guatemala. USTR. (2004). 2004 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. Retrieved June 20 th 2004, from http://www.ustr.gov/reports/nte/2004/honduras.pdf Van Crowder, L. (1996). Decentralized extension: effects and opportunities. Retrieved June 4 th 2004 from http://www.fao.org/sd/Exdirect/EXan0013.htm Van den Ban, A. W., & Hawkins, H.S. (1996). Agricultural Extension (2 nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Wilson, M. (1991). Reducing the Costs of Public Extension Services. In W.M. Rivera & D.J. Gustafson (Eds.), Agricultural Extension: Worldwide Institutional Evolution and Forces for Change. (pp. 13-22). Amsterdam: Elsevier. The World Bank. (2003a). Farmer led extension. Retrieved March 5 th 2004 from http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/ardext.nsf/26ByDocName/Farmer-ledExtension

PAGE 144

133 The World Bank. (2003b). Rural Extension Services (Policy Research Working Paper No.2976). Washington, DC: Anderson J. & Feder, G. The World Bank. (2002). Rural extension and advisory services: New directions (Rural development strategy background paper no.9). Washington, DC: Alex, G., Zijp, W., & Byerlee, D. The World Bank. (1992). The balance between public and private sector activities in the delivery of livestock services (World Bank Discussion paper no. 163). Washington, DC:. Umali, D.L., Feder, G., & de Hann, C.

PAGE 145

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Elena Mara Toro Alfaro was born in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, in September 1977. Elena attended Escuela Internacional Sampedrana in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, where she graduated from the Bachiller en Ciencias y Letras and High School programs in June 1995. Elena attended Zamorano, Panamerican School of Agriculture (Zamorano, Honduras) beginning in the spring of 1996. She completed her Ingeniero Agrnomo degree with an orientation in Animal Science in December 1999. During the winter of 2000, Elena participated in an internship in the ruminant nutrition laboratory at Cornell University. By the summer of 2000, Elena started working as a research assistant in the Milk Production and Processing Project, one of the programs that seek to revitalize the rural economies affected by hurricane Mitch in the north coast of Honduras, funded by USAID and Zamorano. There she developed curricula for dairy farmers, coordinated program activities, and worked closely with Zamorano students on research projects. Furthermore, she served as resident assistant for the Bolivar student residence. In 2001, she was named administrative coordinator for the project. Her emphasis was coordinating field activities, handling fund allocation and budget preparation, and serving as a liaison to members of the dairy industry of Honduras. In August 2002, Elena entered the masters program in the department of Agricultural Education and Communication at the University of Florida, with an emphasis in international extension. Elena was awarded a Graduate Research 134

PAGE 146

135 Assistantship from the Space Agriculture in the Classroom grant, a partnership among NASA, USDA, and the University of Florida. During her graduate studies, she also worked closely with the Association of International Agriculture and Extension Education (AIAEE). In April 2004, Elena received the honor of being named Outstanding Graduate Student of the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0007521/00001

Material Information

Title: Perceptions of Livestock Extension Education Delivery and Globalization Effects among Dairy Farmers in the North Coast of Honduras
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0007521:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0007521/00001

Material Information

Title: Perceptions of Livestock Extension Education Delivery and Globalization Effects among Dairy Farmers in the North Coast of Honduras
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0007521:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












PERCEPTIONS OF LIVESTOCK EXTENSION EDUCATION DELIVERY AND
GLOBALIZATION EFFECTS AMONG DAIRY FARMERS IN THE NORTH COAST
OF HONDURAS















By

ELENA MARIA TORO ALFARO


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2004

































Copyright 2004

by

Elena Maria Toro Alfaro
































This thesis is dedicated to my parents, Eduardo and Dilcia Toro.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost I express my gratitude to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, for

his immense love, help and fidelity. I give him the honor and the glory in this journey.

I would like to thank the members of my supervisory committee (Dr. Nick Place,

Dr. Tracy Irani and Dr. Roger Natzke) for allowing me the opportunity to work with

them, for their insightful contributions to my professional development, and for their

kindness and support. I am especially grateful to my supervisory committee chair (Dr.

Nick Place), for his guidance, encouragement, and patience. I will always appreciate the

Godly example he set in my life.

I am also indebted to Dr. Ed Osborne and the faculty in the Department of

Agricultural Education and Communication for funding my graduate studies through the

Space Agriculture in the Classroom Grant, and for all their support and encouragement. I

extend thanks to the Agricultural Education and Communication Department staff for

their help and kindness. Furthermore I want to express deep gratitude to Dr. Marta

Hartmann and James Umphrey. In addition, I am grateful to all my graduate colleagues.

I thank my friends Gina Canales and Kelly Jimenez for all the memories and friendship.

I wish them all the best!

I express gratitude to my pastors Ileana and Heriberto Cafiizares for their love,

guidance and words of wisdom. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, sisters,

grandparents, family, and friends for their love and undying support from a distance.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES .................................................... ......... .............. viii

A B ST R A C T .......... ..... ...................................................................................... x

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

B background of Study ............................................... ..... .................... .. 1
M ilk Production in H onduras ........................................ ........................................1
M ilk M marketing ................................... ........................... .........
Support Services Available to the Dairy Industry ................................................3
Directorate of Agricultural Science and Technology (DICTA)............................4
Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs)..........................................................5
F arm er A sso citation s ...................... .... ........................................ .. ...... .. .. ...6
Recent Events Affecting the Dairy Industry of Honduras...............................6
Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)............................... .8
N eed for the Study ........................................................ ................ .9
State ent of the Problem .......................................................... ............... 11
Purpose and O objectives ......... .................................. .. .. ...... .. ............ 13
L im stations of the Study ........................................... ....................................... 14
Significance of the Problem ............... .... .................. .................. ............... 14
D efin itio n s ................................................................1 5
S u m m a ry ............................................ .................................................1 6

2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................... ............................... 17

Extension in the Development of the Agricultural and Livestock Sectors.................17
Factors that Affect the Performance of Extension.................................................21
A approaches to Extension Services......................................... ......................... 23
P u b lic ..........................................................................................2 4
P riv a te ................................................................................................................... 2 4
Public Extension ..... ............. .................................................25
Training and visit extension (T&V) ......................................................28
D decentralization ................................................... .. ........ ........ 30



v









Privatized Extension ............................................................................ .33
Farm er-Led Extension ............................................................ ............... 34
Farm er-to-farm er extension...................................... ........................ 36
Farm er field schools ................... ....................................... .................... 38
The problem census/problem solving (PC/PS) approach...........................40
The NGO-governm ent collaboration ................................. ............... 40
D delivery of Livestock Services................................ ....................................... 44
Importance and Types of Needs Assessments.........................................................46
E education in R ural A reas........... ................. ............ ................. ............... 49
Principles of Adult Education...................... ........... .... ............... 50
Overview of Delivery Methods Used in Extension........................ ...............52
Organization and Development of Farmer Groups .......................................... 55
L leadership D evelopm ent ......... ................. ................... .................... ............... 57
C onclu sion ......... .................. ..................................... ...........................60

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y ............................................................................ ................... 6 1

R e se arch D e sig n ................................................................................................... 6 2
P o p u la tio n s ........................................................................................................... 6 3
Instrumentation ................ ..... .. .......... ....... ............ .... .. ........ 65
D ata C collection Procedures ............................................... ............................. 68
D ata A n aly sis ............................. ....................................................... ............... 6 9
Sum m ary ................ ..................................... ........................... 70

4 R E S U L T S .............................................................................7 2

Demographics .......... ..... ......... ....................72
Background Inform ation .................................. .....................................72
Farm Characteristics ........ .............................. ..... .. ..... ... ........ .... 75
O bjectiv e 1 ............................................................................ 7 8
O objective 2 ............... .......... ......................... ...........................84
O bjectiv e 3 ......... .................. ..................................... ........................... 85
O bjectiv e 4 ............. ................. .................................................................... 87
Felt Needs ........... .. ............................ 87
Ascribed Needs.................... ................................. .. 90
O bjectiv e 5 ............................................................. 9 1
S u m m a ry ............. .. ............... ................. ..............................................9 3

5 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION.... 94

D iscu ssion of K ey F findings ............................................................. .....................94
O bje ctiv e 1 ..................................................... ................ 9 4
O objectives 2 and 3 ........................................ .. .. .... ........ ......... 99
Objective 4. ............... .. ........................... .................... 101
O bjectiv e 5 ......................................... ............ ............... 104
C o n clu sio n s.................................................... ................ 10 5
Recommendations........ ........ ........ .. ................. ....... 106









Future R research N needed ................................................... ........................ 107
S u m m a ry ........................................................................................1 0 7

APPENDIX

A STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR FARMERS ...............................108

B STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR INPUT SUPPLIERS .......................118

C STRUCTURED INTERVIEW FOR FARMER ASSOCIATIONS
R EPRE SEN TA TIV E S.............. .................................................... ............... 121

LIST OF REFEREN CES ......... ..... .................................................... 125

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............. ... ... ............... .................... ............... 134
















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

2-1. Extension M market Reform Strategies........ .... ..... .... ..................... ............... 24

2-2. Extension Non-Market Reform Strategies. ................................... ............... 25

2-3. Characteristics of Pedagogy and Andragogy........................................ 51

2-4. Delivery methods used in extension services. ................... ............... ......... 54

4-1. Distribution of New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farmers by Gender (n=41).......73

4-2. Educational Background of New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farmers................73

4-3. Years Involved in Milk Production of New CREL, Old CREL and
L large F arm ers. ..................................................... ................. 74

4-4. Distribution of Family Members Working Part or Full-Time on the Farm..............74

4-5. Distribution of Permanent Workers per Farm in New CREL, Old
C R E L and L large F arm s......................................... .............................................75

4-6. Educational Background of Farm W workers. ........................................ ..................75

4-7. Characteristics of New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farms..................................76

4-8. Average Pasture Area (acres) on New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farms...........76

4-9. Average Daily Milk Production and Number of Cows
in M ilk per F arm ................................................... ................. 77

4-10. Composition of Breeds Among New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farms ............77

4-11. Frequency and Percentage of Adoption of Management Practices in
New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farms................................... .................. .....78

4-12. Frequency and Percentage of Farmers Who Have Participated in Public and/or
Private Extension Program s. ............................................ ............................ 79

4-13. Top Three Sources of Information used by New CREL, Old CREL and Large
fa rm e rs ........... ........ ............................................................................... 8 0









4-14. Farmers Perceptions of the Quality of Support Services........................................81

4-15. Additional Support Services Needed According to Farmers.................................82

4-16. Distribution of the Frequency and Percentage of Attendees
to Extension Program s. ................................................ ................................ 83

4-17. Percentage of Farms That Send Farm Workers to Training Programs and
Reasons for the Lack of Attendance at Programs in New CREL, Old CREL
and L large Farm s ........................................................................84

4-18. Educational Delivery Methods Used by Providers.......................................85

4-19. Farmers Preferences Regarding Educational Delivery Methods..............................86

4-20. Ranking of Training Priorities of New, Old and Large Farmers.............................89

4-21. Frequency and Percentage of Farmers Belonging to Farmer Associations and
Perceived Benefits of Membership by Farmers. ......... ......................................91

4-22. Farmers Understanding and Perceptions of the Central American Free Trade
A greem ent (C A F T A ). ..................................................................... ...................93















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

PERCEPTIONS OF LIVESTOCK EXTENSION EDUCATION DELIVERY AND
GLOBALIZATION EFFECTS AMONG DAIRY FARMERS IN THE NORTH COAST
OF HONDURAS

By

Elena Maria Toro Alfaro

December 2004

Chair: Nick Place
Major Department: Agricultural Education and Communication

The main purpose of our study was to determine the perceptions of dairy farmers as

to extension's educational delivery and with respect to globalization effects in the north

coast of Honduras. The design for our study was descriptive research. Structured

interview guides were developed for farmers, service providers, and farmer association

board members located in the north coast of Honduras. Two major groups of farmers

were studied. The first group was made up of 41 members of 20 Centros de Recolecci6n

y Enfriamiento de Leche (CREL). CRELs are farmer-owned milk collection and cooling

centers located along the north coast of Honduras. A stratified sample based on location

and length of operation of the CREL was used to select CRELs. The second major group

of farmers was made of 10 large farmers selected based on the leadership they provide to

the dairy industry; they had no affiliation to CRELs. Results indicated that dairy farmers

in the North Coast of Honduras have limited access to formal extension services. Most of









the farmers had been exposed to sporadic, short-term technical interventions that do not

include follow-up activities. As a result, service providers such as concentrate and

veterinary supply companies offer educational programs on a regular basis. Farmer

associations encourage and sponsor these programs but their quality is extremely

variable.

CREL farmers in general have positive attitudes toward extension and are satisfied

with existing support services. Nonetheless, CREL farmers had difficulty expressing

their needs and envisioning extension's benefits. Informal networks similar to farmer-to-

farmer extension have emerged among CRELs as a result of the lack of extension. On

the other hand, large farmers see a need for extension but believe there are major

obstacles for its development. Large farmers believe the national extension services are

not responsive to their needs; and expressed their need for specialized services. Both

CREL and large farmers had little understanding of the potential implications of free

trade agreements. Consequently, most farmers see treaties as a negative event that could

seriously threaten the existence of the Honduran dairy industry. The most common

extension delivery methods used by nonformal education providers are one-day seminars,

result demonstrations, field days and farm visits. More-educated farmers prefer

participating in programs where both foundational theory and hands-on and applicable

practice are used to deliver new knowledge. Less-educated farmers prefer hands-on and

experiential-learning delivery methods only. Long-term educational needs for dairy

farmers are not limited to technical aspects of milk production. Finally, leadership

training and organizational development are also key areas that must be targeted in

CRELs and farmer associations.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Background of Study

Our study addressed the field of extension education services in the dairy industry

of Honduras. Nonformal education programs on milk production are offered by

extension and other providers (such as input suppliers and farmer associations). Using

structured interview guides, we examined farmers' perceptions about extension education

programs available in four geographic areas in the north coast of Honduras. Our study

sought to determine the most appropriate methods for delivering educational programs to

stakeholders in the dairy industry. We also assessed farmers' perceptions about the

implications of free trade agreements being negotiated by the Honduran government at

the time of our study. Felt and ascribed needs of farmers were also documented.

Milk Production in Honduras

Honduras is the second largest milk producer in Central America. According to

FAOSTAT (2004), 597,500 metric tons of milk where produced in 2003 making it the

country's second most important agricultural commodity after coffee. The dominant

production system is dual-purpose (85%) cattle production, where cows are milked by

hand once a day. The genetic base in this production system is Bos indicus (mainly

Brahman) and crossbred with Bos taurus breeds (usually Holstein or Brown Swiss). The

most abundant feed resources are native forages and crop residues, but their quality and

quantity is low. Consequently, milk productivity is also low (1,700 to 1980 #

milk/lactation). Another constraint is that forage supply is related to availability of rains.









During the 6-month dry season, the quantity of forage available is minimal, especially

grasses. This causes milk production to drop sharply compared to the rainy season when

there is an abundance of green pastures (Holmann, 2001). Milk production during the

dry season is about 40% lower compared to the rainy season (Argel 1999). In contrast,

in the humid tropics, the lack of forage occurs during the rainy season due to excessive

rainfall, lack of sunlight (clouds), and over-saturation of water in the soils. Overall, the

industry there has been characterized by low milk productivity, and the average daily

milk production per cow is 8.0 lb (INE, 2002).

According to the IV Censo Nacional Agropecuario in 1993 and subsequent

estimations of the Instituto Nacional de Estadistica (INE,1993), approximately 85,000

dairy farmers nationwide are distributed in 5 geographical areas: northeast, northwest,

central, southeast, and southern (Jara Almonte, 1999). However, experts in the field

believe that the number of dairy farms has decreased instead of remaining constant in the

last decade because of natural disasters like hurricane Mitch and the difficulties small

farmers face in marketing milk.

Dairy farming in Honduras is very labor-intensive (LSU Ag Center, 2002). The

dairy industry employs approximately 300,000 people living in rural areas, which

accounts for nearly 35% of the economically active population of the agriculture-and-

livestock sector of Honduras (IICA, 2003). In turn, milk production has considerable

importance in the economy of the country, as a source of employment and also as a major

food supply, as a wealth generator, and for its contributions to the agro-industrial sector

(INE, 2002).









Milk Marketing

Milk in Honduras is marketed to two types of processors: the industrial circuit and

the artisan circuit. The industrial circuit collects and markets about 25% of the milk

produced in Honduras (Umafia, 1998). Honduras has 5 industrial milk plants. The

industrial circuit is also known as the formal sector, because milk is pasteurized and dairy

products are usually sold in packaged form under reasonably good-quality standards.

Industrial plants usually buy milk from farmers who produce good quality milk. The

milk price paid to farmers by industrial plants is highest (about $0.26 to $0.32/kg), and it

is constant throughout the year. However, this price is obtained by less than 5% of dairy

farms because plants require milk to be cooled in order to obtain a product of higher

hygienic quality; and farms must be located along roads with easy access throughout the

year (Argel, 1999).

The remaining 75 to 80% of the milk is marketed by the artisan circuit, which is

mainly constituted by small-scale rural cheese factories that do not pasteurize milk.

Artisan production is also known as the informal sector because this small family-type of

enterprise does not pay taxes. The milk price paid to farmers in the informal sector is

generally at least 20% lower than the price paid by the formal sector because it is

collected as hand-milked warm milk (i.e., not cooled) and thus, its quality is lower and it

has a shorter shelf life (Holmann, 2001).

Support Services Available to the Dairy Industry

In the past half-century, a number of rural-development organizations have

emerged in Honduras. These include state agriculture institutions, farmers'

organizations, and non-governmental organizations (NGO's). Agricultural institutions

and projects that have attempted to serve rural-development needs have been composed









of a variety of national, international, public, and private institutions. However, projects

were deficient in terms of stakeholder input, and were designed and conducted with

limited farmer participation. These projects made extensive use of outside experts, and

were constituted primarily with an agricultural focus. The underlying assumption was

that if agricultural productivity could be increased, then rural-development would take

place (Carrasco & Acker, 2003). Services available to dairy farmers have also been

limited by the lack of permanent extension-service providers in the most important

production areas and by the lack of expertise in the providers.

Directorate of Agricultural Science and Technology (DICTA)

As a result of the Modernization Law for the Agricultural Sector in Honduras

(passed in 1992), the Agricultural Technology Generation and Transfer System (GTTA in

Spanish) was radically reformed, and the Directorate of Agricultural Science and

Technology (DICTA in Spanish) was created. DICTA is a decentralized entity, under the

Secretariat of Agriculture and Livestock (SAG in Spanish). DICTA's main functions

include privatizing services for generating and transferring agricultural technology, and

regulating the market for these services. In Honduras, government institutions have

provided extension services free to farmers for the last 40 years. Unfortunately, this has

led to serious sustainability problems and low-quality services, lack of response to

farmers needs, and costly programs (Hermosilla & Macias, 2002).

Currently DICTA offers services to small-scale commercial farmers through

contracts (using donor and government funds) with private-sector service providers such

as domestic consulting firms, NGOs, or individuals. The contracts are tripartite.

Farmers, service providers, and a government representative (in this case, the office of

Modernization of Agricultural Technology Services Project, or PROMOSTA) sign the









contract/agreement, which requires that specific services to the farmers' organization be

provided in exchange for payment. The payment to the service provider is a combination

of funds from a grant fund and farmers' contributions. Farmers' contributions are made

on a gradually increasing scale, with the annual contribution increasing from 10 to 25%

over 3 years.

In addition to the agricultural sector's modernization, the National System of

Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer (SNITTA in Spanish) was formed. This

group organizes and promotes the activities of the Agricultural Technology and Transfer

System (GTTA in spanish). SNITTA was designated to coordinate the actions of the

public and private sectors and provide services for the generation and transfer of

agricultural technology, allowing the private sector and farmers to participate more fully

in the planning stage of programs (Hermosilla & Macias, 2002).

DICTA has six regional offices in the country: (1) Central-western, (2) Northeast,

(3) Northwest, (4) Southern, (5) Central-eastern and (6) North coast. Each regional office

is responsible for coordinating and diffusing technology-transfer systems and for

supervising and evaluating private firms and consultants (DICTA, 2004). Other than

DICTA there are no other permanent extension service providers in Honduras.

Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs)

Approximately 4,000 NGO's are registered in Honduras. However, it was not until

recent years that NGOs have come to play a major role in the dairy industry. Despite the

existence of a variety of NGO networks and the Association of Non-governmental

Organizations (ASONOG), as well as eighteen NGO networks, the NGO community is

relatively fragmented, lacking coordination and cooperation among different sectors

including government and other institutions, such as universities. There is general









consensus among the NGO community that competition for project funds took

precedence over research and learning. International donors contribute the majority of

financial and other resources to NGOs (Meltzer, 2001).

Farmer Associations

Farmer associations represent farmers interests at the national level and have

proven to be very influential in the acquisition of external funds for extension programs,

and this is most prevalent in the north coast of Honduras. Nevertheless, farmer

associations have not been characterized for offering services that can lead to improving

the conditions of farmers through educational programs or any other type of assistance.

Most associations have very limited impact on their affiliates and although many are

concerned with issues of food security, land reform, access to markets and technology,

persistent divisions within farmer associations and other organizations continue to

weaken their intentions. At the governmental level the sector remains characterized by

division due to distinct political affiliations (Carrasco & Acker, 2003). Political

favoritism is a major inhibitor of the development of the sector.

Recent Events Affecting the Dairy Industry of Honduras

During the last decade, a series of events have affected the dairy industry of

Honduras. Hurricane Mitch struck Honduras in November of 1998 causing serious

damage to the cattle industry. Some 78,000 hectares of grazing land were destroyed.

Additionally, about 30,000 dairy cows were lost and this accounted for approximately

15% of the stock in the country (IADB, 2002). In response to the disaster, the United

States Agency for International Development (USAID) allocated resources to revitalize

the rural economies affected by hurricane Mitch in Honduras. Within the dairy sector it

aimed to improve dairy farms at two levels: technical aspects of milk production and









farmer organization, that would lead to improvement of milk quality and marketing

opportunities.

As a result of these resources, the Dairy Enterprise Initiative (DEI) directed by

Land O'Lakes International Development organized initially 13 groups of dairy

producers in order to establish farmer-owned milk cooling and collection centers known

as Centros de Recolecci6n y Enfriamiento de Leche (CREL) during 2000 and 2001.

CRELs offer small producers several opportunities including:

* Access to premiums paid by the industrial circuit for cooled milk and volume.
* Communication and networking with other farmers.
* Development of capacity to be organized, for sharing power and decision-making.

However, due to negative experiences in the past, farmers in Honduras had been

reluctant to form cooperatives or farmer groups, especially if money was involved.

Nonetheless, the initial 13 CRELs started operations in late 2001. On average each

CREL had between 15 and 20 small producers. Current production data show that

typically, dairy farmers in Honduras are very small, the daily average is 8 # of milk, and

80% of LEYDE suppliers (the largest processing plant in the north coast of Honduras)

produce 176 # or less per day (0. Javier, personal communication, June 24th, 2003).

The Dairy Enterprise Initiative provided initial training and one cooling tank per

CREL. These CRELs were able to negotiate higher prices and reach commitment from

processing plants in the industrial circuit that they would buy all milk produced by the

CREL as long as milk quality was maintained. The contracts signed with the initial 13

CRELs represented an additional $0.04 to $0.06 per pound of milk. These contracts

represented a breakthrough marketing opportunity for CREL members.









In early 2002, the Honduran Government received requests from farmers in the

departments of Col6n, Yoro and Atlantida in the north coast of Honduras to finance 48

additional CRELs because they realized the advantages CRELs offered. The National

Office of Sustained Rural Development (DINADERS) from the Ministry of Agriculture

and Livestock financed the construction of the 48 new centers, and by the summer of

2003 most of the centers had been built. However, most of the new centers did not start

operating because processing plants in the industrial circuit were not willing to buy milk

under the same conditions negotiated with CRELs in 2000 and 2001. Unfortunately,

training opportunities and support to non-operating CRELs has been limited to basic

training on improving milking procedures and milk quality from the Honduran Dairy

Enterprise program.

Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)

The U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement concluded negotiations in

December 2003. It is the most recent free trade agreement negotiated by Guatemala,

Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and the United States. Costa Rica finalized its

participation on the treaty in January 2004 while the Dominican Republic was integrated

to the treaty on March of the same year. The CAFTA will not only liberalize bilateral

trade between the United States and the region, but also will further integration efforts

among the countries of Central America, removing barriers to trade and investment in the

region by U.S. companies (USTR, 2004). The CAFTA will require the countries of

Central America to undertake needed reforms to alleviate many of the systemic problems

noted below in areas including customs administration; protection of intellectual property

rights; services, investment, and financial services market access and protection;









government procurements; sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) barriers and other non-tariff

barriers (USTR, 2004).

The Government of Honduras, farm groups, and importers have agreed to a quasi-

tariff-rate quota in which prices remains in effect until local grain supplies are exhausted,

after which a 1% duty is applied to imports. Another quasi-tariff-rate quota system is in

place for imports of rice. The United States has strongly opposed the Honduran policies

on these grains as limiting access for U.S. agricultural products. When implemented, the

CAFTA will lead to the elimination of this system. Tariffs on most grains and flour will

be eliminated within 15 years after the agreement takes effect, except for rice tariffs,

which will be phased out over 18 years. Under the CAFTA, textiles and apparel will be

duty-free and quota-free immediately, if they meet the Agreement's rule of origin,

promoting new opportunities for U.S. and Central American fiber, yam, fabric and

apparel manufacturing. The CAFTA will eliminate tariffs on virtually all agricultural

products within a maximum of fifteen years, except for dairy that will take place in 20

years and poultry in 18 (F. Fiallos, personal communication, June, 2004).

Need for the Study

The significant contributions of the dairy industry to the Honduran economy have

been studied by different authors (Galetto, 1996; Merino & Avila, 2000, LSU AgCenter,

2002 & IICA, 2003). Through a review of the literature and a series of informal

interviews with major actors of the sector, it has been found that despite its importance it

has not been studied to as great an extent within the context of extension education.

It is widely understood that dairy farmers in Honduras have had limited access to

extension services. In Honduras, as in many developing countries, it has become

increasingly evident that as DICTA has grown in size and complexity, it has drifted away









from farmer clientele. The lack of relevance of programs to local needs and the limited

interest from farmers to participate provides clear evidence of the problem. Although

major changes have taken place at the national level to increase farmers' participation in

extension program planning and development, such as the Law of Modernization of the

Agricultural Sector in 1992, there is little evidence that farmers' needs are being targeted

and met accordingly.

In their study, LSU Ag Center (2002) identified several critical needs of dairy

farmers in Honduras as perceived by the different members of the industry. Two of the

six recommendations made by the authors related to the provision of extension services,

included: improving quality of milk and dairy products through the implementation of

educational programs, and the creation of an educational program for dairy entrepreneurs

to improve managerial skills. Therefore, one could infer about the need for additional

training and the potential for extension services in the dairy sector of Honduras.

Secondly, limited information is available about potential extension clientele. The

lack of information at the grassroots level constitutes a major constraint for proper

extension planning especially in this time of rapid change. Even the demographics about

the sector have not been updated in a timely manner. The most recent livestock census in

Honduras took place in 1993. Results from this census along with data from the Encuesta

Agricola Nacional de Prop6sitos Multiples (EANPM) conducted by the Instituto

Nacional de Estadistica (INE) (2002) have been used in recent years to estimate changes

in livestock and farmer populations; nevertheless the accuracy of this information is

limited.









Efforts to document and update databases have been undertaken by organizations

like the Asociaci6n de Ganaderos y Agricultores de Atlantida (AGAA) who in the

summer of 2003 conducted a survey among 800 of its members who are dairy producers

to develop a database about dairy farms. The lack of relevant information prevented

AGAA in the past of properly documenting proposals and petitions to the Honduran

government and other external funding agencies. AGAA is most likely the most

influential organization in the north coast of Honduras because of its over 1,100

members.

Farmer's perceptions of extension services have changed considerably in a

relatively short time because of the demands the industrial circuit is placing on farmers as

the country is preparing to enter the CAFTA. Farmers have traditionally been reluctant

to improve production systems and facilities since they did not see any incentives from

the market. However, in the last 2 years, farmer organizations and individual farmers are

more actively seeking extension and consulting services. Farmers are being forced to

implement the new regulations and meet milk quality standards.

Our study took place in the north coast of Honduras, in the departments of Cortes,

Atlantida, Col6n and Yoro in an area called Cuenca Lechera de Honduras. The

importance of this area lies in the fact that although it only comprises 14% (14,118) of

the dairy farms in the country, it produces 46% of milk and supplies 85% of the milk

processed by the industrial circuit (INE, 1993; INE 2002). Furthermore, this is the area

where the initial 13 CRELs were established.

Statement of the Problem

The Honduran Dairy Industry is going to experience dramatic changes in the

foreseeable future. According to Umafia (1998), Honduras ranks second in milk









production in Central America only after Costa Rica. Currently, milk production and

processing in Honduras is highly inefficient and non competitive. Consequently, it could

be hit the hardest by open markets since productivity is low and production costs are high

(I. Matamoros, personal interview, June 2003).

Furthermore, Honduran dairy farmers have not had access to extension programs

that offer non-biased, research based information to face the difficulties of milk

production in the tropics. According to Umali et al. (1994), the ability of the livestock

sector to attain its full productive potential is influenced by the availability and quality of

livestock support services. A review of secondary data and informal interviews during

2000 and 2001 revealed that most of the educational opportunities available to farmers in

the north coast of Honduras come from input suppliers such as veterinary and feed

companies that seek to increase sales rather than to educate farmers. Therefore, quality

of such programs has been extremely variable. Moreover, it has been hard for leaders

and farmers to picture the benefits of extension, especially when programs offered have

come in the form of short-term technical interventions with predetermined agendas.

Additionally, farmers are facing a serious of issues such as the lack of credit and financial

services, lack of infrastructure, land tenure and ownership and marketing problems (LSU

Ag Center, 2002). Farmers are small landholders with few exceptions, and they are

poorly organized at the national level. Although farmer associations exist in virtually

every major town of Honduras, their role is very limited.

A particularly important segment of the dairy industry are CRELs. These centers

are offering an unprecedented opportunity for small farmers to access better milk prices,

to share knowledge and experiences with other farmers and to improve milk quality in the









country. However, CRELs need the expertise and guidance from extension and visionary

leaders to become sustainable units of production. The lack of extension services or the

provision of services that ignore farmer needs and views could prove fatal for rural

economies as CRELs are serving as a model for a large number of farmer groups across

the country. The number of CRELs nationwide has grown from 13 in 2001 to 61 in

2003, and it is expected to reach 75 by the end of 2004.

Based on the above, our study seeks to determine perceptions about extension

services from New and Old CREL members as well as from leaders of the industry in

order to provide foundational data that can be translated into practical recommendations

for extension service providers.

Purpose and Objectives

The main purpose of our study was to determine the perceptions of three groups of

dairy farmers (New CREL members, Old CREL members and large farmers) on

extension's educational delivery in the northern coast of Honduras. Our study focused on

CREL farmers. New CREL farmers are defined as: farmers belonging to CRELs that had

recently started operations at the time of our study and Old CREL farmers as farmers

belonging to CRELs that had started operations in the years 2000 and 2001. The large

farmer group in our study is comprised of leaders in the areas the study was conducted.

The specific objectives for the study were to

* Objective 1: Determine the perception of each group of farmers about extension
services.
* Objective 2: Determine educational delivery methods used in extension programs
offered to dairy farmers in Honduras.
* Objective 3: Determine preferred educational delivery methods for dairy farmers in
Honduras.
* Objective 4: Determine felt and ascribed educational needs for dairy farmers in the
north coast of Honduras.









Objective 5: Determine perceptions of dairy farmers on open market policies and
its effects on the dairy industry in relation to educational needs.


Limitations of the Study

Due to the large number of dairy farmers in the north coast of Honduras

(N=14,895) one potential limitation of the study is that it is focused on three purposive

samples of dairy farmers. Thus, the findings of our study may not be generalized to the

population of all dairy farmers in the north coast of Honduras.

Another potential limitation includes bias potential from assessing only perceptions

of importance, rather than actual knowledge of extension services from farmers.

However, secondary research indicates that knowledge-related perceptions and actual

knowledge can be highly correlated (Ary et al. 2002). In addition, to decrease the

potential bias in the interpretation of the findings by the researcher, a group of experts in

the fields of extension and milk production contributed to the analysis of primary data

collected.

Significance of the Problem

Currently, little is formally documented as to the perceptions about extension,

preferred delivery methods and about the implications of CAFTA from CREL members,

leaders of the dairy industry and from Honduran dairy farmers in general. This problem

is significant to extension providers, farmer associations and the Honduran government

because it is important to address farmers' needs in the near future in order to strengthen

rural economies. Determining the perceptions of CREL farmers and leaders of the

industry will help to paint a clearer picture of the strengths and weaknesses of existing

services, and it will provide foundational data to potential providers. In addition to new

knowledge and strategic recommendations, an increase in the awareness of the









importance of extension in the development of the industry are important outcomes of

our study.

Definitions

Included are the terms and definitions that appear frequently throughout our study.

* Agricultural extension: A series of socially sanctioned and legitimate activities
which seek to enlarge and improve the abilities of farm people to adopt more
appropriate and often new practices and to adjust to changing conditions and
societal needs.

* CRELs: Centro de recolecci6n y enfriamiento de leche (CREL in Spanish).
Farmer-owned milk cooling and collection centers located along the north coast of
Honduras.

* New CREL farmers: Farmers belonging to CRELs who where either in the process
of starting operations or had recently started operations at the time of our study.

* Old CREL farmers: Farmers belonging to CRELs who had started operations in
the years 2000 and 2001.

* Large farmers: Farmers who were not affiliated to CRELs but where considered
leaders in the same geographical areas where CRELs are located.

* DICTA: Directorate of Agricultural Science and Technology (DICTA in Spanish).
DICTA is a decentralized entity, under the Secretariat of Agriculture and Livestock
(SAG in Spanish). DICTA's main functions include the privatization of services
for generating and transferring agricultural technology.

* NGO's: Non-governmental organizations.

* Farmer-led extension: Multidirectional communication process between and
among extension staff and farmers. It involves the sharing, sourcing and
development of knowledge and skills in order to meet farming needs and develop
innovative capacity among all actors. This approach seeks to involve farmers in
training other farmers and trainers, and in sharing, sourcing and transferring
knowledge and skills.

* Adult education: It is a process whereby adults gain knowledge or skills in a set of
organized activities designed to enhance their quality of life involving educators.

* Delivery method: Is the medium through which educational content is transmitted
and human interaction occurs.









* AGAA: Asociaci6n de Ganaderos y Agricultores de Atlantida (AGAA in Spanish).
Farmer association located in the Atlantida region.

* AGAS: Asociaci6n de Ganaderos y Agricultores de Sula (AGAS in Spanish).
Farmer association located in the Sula region.

* SAGO: Sociedad de Agricultores y Ganaderos de Olanchito (SAGO in Spanish).
Farmer association located in the Olanchito region.

* CAFTA: Central American Free Trade Agreement. The CAFTA is the most recent
free trade agreement negotiated by Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua,
Dominican Republic and the United States.


Summary

In summary, the dairy industry in Honduras is a very important economic activity.

However, milk production and processing is highly inefficient and noncompetitive.

Consequently it could be hit the hardest by open markets since productivity is low and

production costs are high. In addition, the lack of adequate extension and support

services has hindered the development of the industry. Based on the above, our study

seeks to determine perceptions about extension services from New and Old CREL

members as well as from leaders of the industry in order to provide foundational data that

can be translated into practical recommendations for extension service providers, farmer

associations, input suppliers and farmers regarding the delivery of extension education

programs related to milk production. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the literature

reviewed for our study.














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

To understand the importance of Extension services for dairy farmers in Honduras

and the importance of documenting farmers needs, it is important to see what the relevant

literature relays on the subject.

* Extension in the development of the agricultural and livestock sector
* Factors that affect the performance of extension
* Approaches to extension services
* Delivery of livestock services
* Importance and types of needs assessments
* Education in rural areas
* Principles of adult education
* Overview of delivery methods used in extension
* Organization and development of farmer groups
* Leadership development

Extension in the Development of the Agricultural and Livestock Sectors

In developing countries where agriculture is the principle means of livelihood for

40 to 90% of the population (Jazairy, 1992), strengthening the ability of agriculture to

compete domestically and in export markets is an important premise for an economically

competitive agricultural sector. The State of Food and Agriculture Report from FAO

(2000) concluded that reducing poverty and food insecurity is not simply a question of

enhancing agricultural productivity and production or of generating more income.

Productivity is the result of complex relations that involves not only farmers but also

complex relationships. Maalouf et al. (1991) have stated that the quality, capability and

performance of farmers in agriculture are fundamental indicators of the level of the

agricultural sectors efficiency, productivity, development and sustainability.









Furthermore, high capability and good performance in farmers are not inborn qualities-

they are acquired. Most farmers in the developing world have a low level of formal

education and extremely few have the opportunity to study agriculture in the formal

school system. As observed in developed countries, it can be inferred that education is

important to develop the agricultural and livestock sectors. In reality, extension services

are continually important even to educated farmers, and research and learning that

accompanies adoption of new technologies is especially important for the advancement

of farmers with low knowledge levels (Rivera et al. 1991).

According to FAO (1990) the Global Consultation on Agricultural Extension has

stated that farm people who receive nonformal education through extension programs

generally increase their productivity and efficiency. Still, extension resources are

available to only 1 out of every 5 farmers in the developing regions of the world (Rivera,

1995). Research shows that in Africa, 2 out of every 3 farmers have no contact with

public extension services; in Asia 3 out of 4; in Latin America, 6 out of 7 and 5 out of 6

in the Near East (Maalouf et al. 1991).

Agricultural extension work is a significant social innovation, an important force

in agricultural change, which has been created and recreated, adapted and developed over

the centuries. Today, the organizations and personnel engaged in agricultural extension

encompass a diverse range of socially sanctioned and legitimate activities which seek to

enlarge and improve the abilities of farm people to adopt more appropriate and often new

practices and to adjust to changing conditions and societal needs (Jones & Garforth,

1997).









The services provided by extension have significant public-good attributes. It is

estimated that there are at least 800,000 official extension workers worldwide, and some

80% of the world's extension services are publicly funded and delivered by civil servants

(Feder, Willett and Zijp, 2001). Universities, autonomous public organizations, and

NGOs deliver about 12% of extension services, and the private sector delivers another

5% (The World Bank, 2003a). Agricultural extension responsibilities include the

transferring of knowledge from researchers to farmers, advising farmers in their decision

making and educating farmers on how to make better decisions, enabling farmers to

clarify their own goals and possibilities, and stimulating desirable agricultural

developments (Van den Ban and Hawkins, 1996). Extension is a function pursuing many

different purposes: livestock development, forest use and conservation, fisheries

engineering and capture, food and nutrition education, as well as well as crop

development. Even in programs designed to foster agricultural crop production,

extension may be concerned with providing information on other crucial issues such as

food storage development, processing, farm management, and marketing (Rivera et al.

2001). In addition, the effectiveness of extension programs is key to the development of

the agricultural and livestock sectors. Rivera (1997) and Swanson et al. (1997) agree that

for agricultural extension to be successful there has to be at the very least a viable

technology system comprising four main factors:

* Commitments to a purpose-specific and target-specific extension/technology policy
covering those factors that directly impact the technology system, including the
utilization of technology by farmers.
* A practical research program involving a technology development system
connected to basic research innovations but devoted to applied and adaptive
research.
* An extension/technology transfer system organized into the sub-functions of
knowledge transfer and input transfer, but responding to any and all purposes, such









as: program actions to promote sustainable agriculture, reduce non-point sources of
pollution, and/or help farmers organize.
* Responsive feedback system that assesses technology utilization by farmers.

Furthermore, John B. Claar, former INTEPAKS Director offers 10

recommendations from an organizational perspective on how to make agricultural

extension successful (adapted by Rivera, 2003). These include:

* Develop a clear-cut mission for the organization, stating what the scope is to be,
whom it has to serve, what the expected outcomes are to be, and how it will be
evaluated.

* Take account of the constraints in the external environment: policy, markets, input
supply, credits, roads and cultural factors.

* Access available information: research-extension linkage, farmer interaction and
feedback and informal and formal lateral linkages with industry, input suppliers
and others.

* Develop internal technical capacity within extension by increasing the formal
education levels, augmenting farmer in-service education and developing and
deploying technical support staff such as Subject Matter Specialists so that they can
better adapt to general recommendations.

* Developed balanced methodology that is re-enforcing. Use mass media, personal
contacts, wholesaling through other organizations or firms, farming systems
research, field-testing, demonstrations and visits.

* Develop and implement an internal management system that provides for personnel
motivation, supervision, reporting, and delegation of authority and plan of work.

* Deal with the human factor. Avoid or soften top down, targeted or technology
centered approaches by involving farmers in problem identification and promoting
interaction in setting programs and securing feedback.

* Budget enough funds for program operations. Ensure budget not mostly for
salaries and provide mobility and teaching tools.

* Organize and structure the organization so that there are clear lines of authority and
that the scope of the work includes relevant areas.

* Divest the organization of roles or functions that conflict with the primary mission,
such as regulatory obligations, credit or input supply functions and administrative
assignments.









Innate in these recommendations are the notions that the success of extension lies

in the strength of the linkages with research bodies and farmers, the expertise of field

agents and the leadership of administrators.

Factors that Affect the Performance of Extension

Shifting trends in agriculture are affecting the traditional roles of agricultural

extension. Numerous authors Qamar (2000), Rivera et al. (2001), Swanson et al. (2003)

suggest that agricultural extension organizations in both developed and developing

countries are undergoing considerable reexamination and change due to the "new

agriculture." This is a trend that is led by the backdrop of declining public resources,

increasing corporate control over key agricultural sector components, increased

competition from abroad, and new relationships among producers and between producers

and end-user markets. Globalization is inextricably linked to privatization, and countries

are finding themselves confronted by a new and highly competitive global market

(Fresco, 2000). In view of that, the participation of farmers in these new economic

relationships demands new skills and knowledge, new communication networks among

like-minded producers, and the ability to identify and take advantage of emerging

marketing and agro-processing opportunities.

Consequently extension organizations, if they are to remain viable institutions,

need to plan and deliver extension programs that can help farmers take advantage of the

new opportunities to increase their income within this new agricultural economy

(Swanson et al. 2003). The threats of not complying with the new roles and

responsibilities are evident, the last decade witnessed an accelerated decline in the

credibility of public sector extension, and unless extension grows to beyond technology

transfer, and clearly articulates its role in facilitating broader changes supportive of









evolving rural livelihoods, its ability to remain relevant in the future is extremely

doubtful (Tadesse, 2003).

According to Rivera (1997) at least nine exogenous forces began to impose their

leverage in extension in the last decade. These forces included

* Expanding international trade and the penetration of competitive global pressures
into local markets.

* The problematic nature of food security, and access to food.

* The exponential population growth, migration and urbanization occurring in the
world today.

* The rapid development of science and technology.

* The increasing pressures on land use.

* The need for sustainable agriculture and natural resources management.

* The growing expectations for participation and control of institutional decision-
making.

* The imbalances in supply of and demand of well trained agricultural workers.

* The persistence of poverty, AIDS, illiteracy and the poor quality of human
development services in most developing countries.

Furthermore, the challenge of addressing these needs are complicated by both the

limited access of farmers to relevant agricultural information and the public sector's

apparent dearth of financial resources for agricultural extension. In this regard if

extension is to be relevant and responsive in the 21st century, it needs to service farm

families in an increasingly complex, interdependent, rapidly changing, resource stressed

world and it must be affordable (Antholt, 1991).









Approaches to Extension Services

In practice, extension organizations everywhere pursue the overall goals of

technology transfer and human resource development, though within each organization

there is a mix of objectives and within each country there is a mix of organizational

patterns (Nagel, 1997). Technology transfer has a focus on production and technical

efficiency and has been predominant in recent years while human resource development

has focused more on institutional building, organization work, leadership development,

increasing farmer knowledge and social change (The World Bank, 2003a). These two

premises have led to a wide variety of approaches to extension. A well-recognized

categorization of extension approaches is the one by Axinn (1988). His book Guide on

Alternative Extension examines eight approaches to extension. These include: the

general agricultural extension approach, commodity specialized approach, training and

visit approach, the agricultural extension participatory approach, project approach,

farming systems development approach, cost sharing approach and the educational

institution approach. An alternate classification by Nagel (1997) differentiates between

approaches that at least in principle, target all persons in rural areas engaged in farming

and those that purposely select clientele according to specific criteria. The general

clientele approach is offered by Ministry-based Extension (in most countries) and

Cooperative Extension in the United States. While selected clientele approaches includes

commodity-based extension, commercial services and client-based & client-controlled

extension.

Anderson and Feder of The World Bank (2003b) prefer to focus on specific formats

or approaches to extension that have appeared in the last three decades as an attempt to

overcome some of the weakness inherent in the public extension systems of recent









decades. These include Training and Visit (T&V), decentralization, privatized extension

and Farmer Field Schools (FFS). In contrast Rivera et al. (2001) distinguishes between a

variety of public sector reform strategies supporting the new paradigm market-driven

income-generation (Table 2-1). According to this distinction, market reforms encompass

four major reform strategies. These include: revision of public sector systems, pluralism,

cost recovery and total privatization.

Table 2-1. Extension Market Reform Strategies.
Market Reforms
Funding
Public Private
Revision of public sector Cost recovery
Public via downsizing & (fee-based) systems
some cost recovery
(OECD countries,
Delivery previously in Mexico)
Pluralism, partnerships, power Privatization (total)
Sharing Commercialization
Private
(Chile, Estonia, Hungary, (The Netherlands, New Zealand
Venezuela, S.Korea, Taiwan) England & Wales)
Source: Rivera et al. (2001)

The non-market reforms comprise two main reform strategies: decentralization and

subsidiarity. Decentralization is focused on transferring central government authority to

lower tiers of government, and subsidiarity is the transferring or delegation of

responsibility to the lowest level of society. Table 2-2 employs illustrates non-market-

oriented structural reforms. Both Table 2-1 and 2-2 highlight the main strategies adopted

worldwide by countries undertaking public sector institutional reform and provides

examples of countries that have followed such reforms.









Based on the above, it is deemed necessary to review public, private and farmer-led

extension in order to gain a deeper understanding of the factors or reforms that can

surface in the analysis of our study.

Table 2-2. Extension Non-Market Reform Strategies.
Non-market reforms
Decentralization to lower tiers Transfer (delegation) of
Political of government responsibility to other entities
Fiscal
Administrative (Colombia, Indonesia, Mexico (Bolivia, to farmer organizations;
Issues The Philippines, Uganda & Ecuador, mixed with farmer-led
others) NGO programs; Peru, extension
devolved to NGOs)
Source: Rivera et al. (2001)

Public Extension

The evolution of public agricultural extension arrived at a worldwide turning point

in the 1980s; it was, so to speak, the end of the beginning as Rivera et al. (2001) defines

it. The traditional approach of public extension led by ministries of agricultural mostly

needed to be redefined and modernized. A basic premise for such change lay in the fact

that the public sector in general is overly burdened with numerous activities and so it was

believed that moving some of them to the private sector might allow more effective

implementation of essential services (Schwartz and Zijp, 1994). At the time public sector

extension worldwide had been criticized for not doing enough, not doing it well, and for

not being relevant. Critics emphasized the insufficient impact in effectiveness, in

efficiency, and the lack of programs that fostered equity (Rivera et al. 1991).

Furthermore, Benor and Harrison (1977), in one of the most influential extension

publications ever, evaluated ministry-based extension systems and found that its poor

performance was related to four leading causes. These causes included: inadequate

internal organizational structures, inefficiency of extension personnel, inappropriateness









or irrelevance of extension content and dilution of extension impact. Their findings in

the late 1970s can be considered root causes for many of the problems public sector

extension is facing today.

In addition, Nagel (1997) cited the contradictory nature of the goals of public

extension as one of the leading causes for the lack of success. He argued that goals were

too ambitious for a single organization. After all, public interest implies serving farmers

and the urban population, securing subsistence production and promoting cash crops for

export, reaching the masses of rural households and serving the needs of specific groups,

extending assistance to high-potential and disadvantaged producers all at the same time.

Consequently it has been hard for extension to program and deliver quality programs to

the different segments of clientele, and often this has led extension to ignore or give less

emphasis to less advantaged farmers.

Wilson (1991) found that public extension services demonstrated a bias towards

farmers with better access to productive resources and larger holdings in a study

conducted in Ecuador. Moreover, Nagel (1997) argues that priorities for extension have

too often been pro urban in terms of price policy, favoring innovative individuals within

the modern sector, neglecting poorer strata and forgetting about women farmers. In

addition he considers that priority setting for research has been rarely based on extension

field evaluations because the system did not foster critical upward communication.

While on the technical side, knowledge has been transformed into field messages that

frequently led to distorted and outdated communication.

Yet another central problem for public extension might lie in the fact that extension

has never been seen as a purely educational activity by ministries of agriculture and









governments (Nagel, 1997). In contrast, Rivera (2003) blames the internal bureaucratic

and field mismanagement, inadequate infrastructure and institutional support and

insufficient training for the range of programmatic and specialized problems that have

needed to be resolved. Nagel (1997) argues that the hierarchical and highly bureaucratic

way in which services were organized hampered a full realization of their potential.

Nonetheless, one of the major challenges, if not the most important, that public extension

has faced is to serve large numbers of farmers using limited public funds. Realistically,

large numbers of farmers cannot be reached by publicly supported extension services and

consequently millions of farmers are not yet being reached by agricultural extension

services (Malouf et al., 1991).

To remedy some of the problems discussed earlier in terms of coverage and fiscal

arrangements, the public sector has been (1) shifting its services to the private sector

sometimes totally as in the case of the Netherlands (Proost & Duij sings, 1991), New

Zealand and Peru (Rivera, 2003); or (2) partially through contractual, outsourcing

arrangements like in Chile, or by (3) adopting private sector practices such as cost-

recovery schemes or fee-based activities for services that were once freely provided.

Such is the case in Northwest Mexico where fee-based programs have been established

for large farmers (Rivera et al. 1991), and in Honduras where farmers are expected to pay

a portion of the costs of extension (Hermosilla & Macias, 2002). As a result, there is an

increase of the private sector in extension (Rivera, 2003). Due to its importance, the

provision of private extension and its modalities is discussed later in this chapter.

Still, aside from the need to partner with the private sector and to enter where

markets fail, public sector services are necessary to protect the environment, ensure









public health, prevent inequity regarding access to public information, and provide for

emergencies (Qamar 2000; Rivera 2003). Also, a professional public extension serves to

validate information from commercial sources, transfer practices (not just technology),

conduct and report accomplishments and promote organizational action (Rivera, 2003).

Furthermore, one of the primary reasons for public sector extension is for its public good

attributes. According to Kalambokidis (2004) public value is created when a service

benefits society as a whole. When a service is recognized as having significant public

value, even citizens who do not directly benefit from the service will endorse its public

funding. The perception of agricultural information as a public good and subject to

market failure has provided the prime argument in policy debates since the 1960s for the

continued provision of government extension services (Marsh & Pannell, 1999).

Two of the most important reforms to public extension that took place in the past

three decades are discussed next. The first is Training and Visit extension, developed and

promoted by The World Bank in the 1970s and 1980s as a means to improve

organizational and programmatic structures of public sector extension and the second is

decentralization, a major reform that led to a transfer of powers, responsibilities and

functions from government to market (Rivera, 1997).

Training and visit extension (T&V)

The T&V model in the strict sense of the word is not a separate approach but one

way to organize ministry-based extension in developing countries (Nagel, 1997). This

model was promoted by the World Bank between 1975-1995 as a national public

extension system and was applied in more than 70 countries. T&V attempted to tackle

some of the weaknesses of extension at the time. T&V extension consisted of the

following features (The World Bank, 2003b):









* A single line of command, with several levels of field and supervisory staff
* In-house technical expertise, whereby subject matter specialists are to provide
training to staff and tackle technical issues reported by field staff
* Exclusive dedication to information dissemination work.
* A strict and predetermined schedule of village visits within a 2 week cycle where
contacts are to be made with selected and identified contact farmers.
* Mandatory bi-weekly training emphasizing the key set of messages for the
forthcoming 2 week cycle.
* A seasonal workshop with research personnel.
* Improved remuneration to extension staff, and provision of transportation.

T&V is considered the most ambitious of all the attempts to rehabilitate extension.

It is estimated that most of the $2.3 billion spent by The World Bank between

1974 and 1984 went to T&V system projects (Kaimowitz, 1991). However the

appropriateness and achievements of T&V have been fiercely contested (Hulme, 1991).

The World Bank (2003b) has reported that the costs of T&V structure were higher by

some 25 to 40% than the systems they replaced. This made T&V extension more

dependent on public budget allocations. Secondly, the design intended to tackle the

accountability issue by improving management's ability to monitor staff activities, taking

advantage of the strict visit schedule, the identifiable contact farmer, and the intensive

hierarchy of supervisory staff. However, the problem lied in the fact that the quality of

extension services was not practically monitored, and ultimately managers and policy

makers could not observe the impact of T&V extension. In conclusion, the lack of

accountability to farmers was not resolved. Lastly, some of the features of the design

could not stand up to practical realities. For example, the contact farmer approach was

often replaced by a contact group approach because biases in the selection of contact

farmers led to diminished diffusion. As a result, the consequences for extension were

apparently negative.









Nonetheless, the T&V had significant impacts for extension. The first and more

recognized is that approximately 60 to 70 countries government operated extension

services were positively restructured (at least in part) and their internal systems

redesigned. The second, and not so commonly perceived impact, according to Hulme

(1991), is that T&V has been a powerful force in defending the role of the public sector

in agricultural development. T&V proved to have administrative advantages including

defined lines of authority and personnel management; however, it could not be sustained

after extension projects ended (IFAD, 2004). The limited success of T&V in its present

form as a nationwide extension system should not discredit the quality and

appropriateness of many of its elements. Applied less rigidly and combined with the

tools of human resource development as well as with the concept of participation, these

elements may constitute a valuable base for reforming extension organizations, large or

small (Nagel et al., 1992).

Decentralization

Recent decentralization efforts take place in a context of extension re-

conceptualizing and re-structuring that generally acknowledges that supply-side

extension should be abandoned for demand-driven approaches that are more responsive

to farmers' needs. Several factors argue for a re-assessment of extension, including the

fiscal crisis that has made it hard for governments to provide adequate resources for

extension and pressures towards more participatory approaches that allow farmers to

influence the design, implementation and evaluation of extension activities (Van

Crowder, 1996). The chronic difficulties of maintaining a public-sector extension service

and the importance of farmer participation have led to a wider scope for extension

through non-governmental intermediaries such as NGOs and farmer organizations.









Financial pressures have led to exploration of ways to reduce government costs by

decentralization, privatizing extension services and cost-sharing arrangements with

NGOs and farmers' organizations (Van Crowder, 1996).

The decentralization of extension services retains the public delivery and public

funding characteristics of traditional centralized extension but transfers the responsibility

for delivery to local governments (The World Bank, 2003b). Rondinelli (1981),

distinguishes between four different categories of decentralization:

1. Deconcentration is defined as a transfer of power to local administrative offices of
the central government.
2. Delegation is the transfer of power to sub national governments and/or parastatals,
or other government entities.
3. Devolution is the transfer of power to sub national political entities.
4. Privatization is the transfer of power to the private sector.

Decentralization not only gives local government control over personnel and

finances, but in theory it focuses control closer to the level of farmers and thus can

improve extension accountability to their needs. Rivera (1996) has observed three policy

directions that dominate extension decentralization:

1. Decentralization shifts the burden of extension costs through fiscal system
redesign with greater local government shifts for participation in financing and
managing extension.
2. Decentralization of extension enables structural reform with the goal of improving
institutional responsiveness and accountability.
3. Decentralization refocuses the management of extension through farmer
participatory involvement in decision-making and responsibility for extension
programs.

The advantages of decentralization are improvement in accountability, increased

coordination of local resources and higher commitment of clientele and leaders due to

increased participation in the planning and implementation stages of extension programs.

Nonetheless, decentralized extension also comes with serious threats such as: greater risk









of political interference and utilization of extension staff and resources for other

purposes, difficulties with maintaining agent quality due to the loss of economies of

scales in training. Most critical is the fact that extension-research linkages are more

difficult to organize, and issues with financial sustainability increase. In actuality, costs

are not decreased but instead they are merely transferred to the local level (The World

Bank, 2003b).

Furthermore FAO (1997) states that decentralization has not adequately developed

alternatives to be used in places where the human resources at the local level are

considered poor and illiterate as in the case of Honduras. A study conducted by Llambi

and Lindemann (2001) in seven Latin American countries (Colombia, Chile, Peru,

Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela) showed that none of the reforms leading to

decentralization have reached all their alleged goals, namely increased market

competitiveness, poverty reduction, environmental sustainability and sound

governability. Furthermore, they affirm that after 2 decades of reform there is still a

tension between macroeconomic policies and agricultural policies. They have stated

"Nor in any case have we found a neat policy for the restructuring of the whole

agricultural public sector (p.7)." They feel that there is always an unavoidable and

unrelenting tension between the forces of centralization and decentralization. In all the

Latin American cases this tension exists not only between central and local governments,

but it also manifests itself in the relationships between regional and local governments.

Tension even exists at the local government level between the local offices and rural

communities. In contrast, the proceedings of the International Seminar El espacio

municipal: nuevos desafios y posibilidades para el desarrollo rural con participaci6n









ciudadana from FAO (1997) state that decentralization in Bolivia has led to increased

participation of peasant and indigenous groups in decision making at the local level. As a

result, extension providers are tailoring their programs to needs of these less advantaged

segments of rural population.

Privatized Extension

In its pure sense, privatization implies a full transfer of ownership from government

extension to a private entity, with that entity meeting all costs and receiving any profits

(Rivera and Cary, 1997). In reality what has emerged are a series of approaches like the

fee-for-service for extension (where the provider may be a public entity or private firms

or consultants). In developing countries it usually entails considerable public funding

even if the provider is private (The World Bank, 2003b). The diverse financial

arrangements adopted in the last 2 decades by governments worldwide to fund

agricultural extension services provide a menu of options for consideration.

The cost recovery approach has been used in countries like Mexico where fee-

based systems among large-scale farmers in the Northwest region of the country are used.

The voucher system used Chile and Colombia has replaced partially or totally public

extension delivery systems by vouchers distributed by government services for farmers to

use in hiring private extension consultants. These vouchers are attached to agricultural

bank loans, committing a certain percentage of the loan for extension services (Rivera

and Cary, 1997). The gradual privatization process such as the one that occurred in the

Netherlands was done by transferring one half of the field extension personnel to farmer

associations while the responsibility for linking research and the privatized extension

services, policy preparation, implementation, and promotion and regulatory tasks

remained under the control of the Ministry of Agriculture (Le Gouis, 1991 cited by









Rivera and Cary, 1997). The technical staff of farmer associations has since transferred

to a private company, the DLV Adviesgroep Inc.

Some of the criticisms to forms of privatization of extension services are that there

is a focus on commercial farms. Questions arise about extension services for poor and

less advantaged farmers or those for whom the value of information is lower. New

Zealand is one of the few countries in the world that is on the verge of becoming fully

privatized. Although there has been no formal assessment of the impact of the changes in

New Zealand there appears to be less interactions between organizations, reduced

feedback from farmers to science providers, and more limited information distribution,

particularly to farmers who are less well-off (Rivera and Cary, 1997).

Still, Maalouf et al. (1991) believes that because of the problems agricultural

extension is facing in developing countries, neither publicly or privately supported

extension work can do the job alone or separately. Cooperation and complementation of

the public and private sectors in the area of extension offer the potential to

* Increase resources for extension services to farmers.
* Reduce overlap and significantly increase the number of farmers reached by
extension.
* Increase and improve the utilization of agricultural research findings from both
public and private interests supporting agricultural research and development
investment.

Farmer-Led Extension

Over the last decade, a growing number of organizations have sought models which

seek to be both more effective in serving farmers needs and institutionally more

sustainable. Farmer-led extension seeks to promote farmers and other rural people, rather

than professional extensionists and researchers, as the principal agents of change

(Scarborough et al., 1997). The proliferation of such approaches has been attributed to









the dissatisfaction with results from traditional extension programs and the contraction of

funding for public extension (The World Bank, 2003b). Farmer-led extension

encompasses a diversity of activities that seek to ensure that agricultural extension or

research services are responsive to resource-poor farmers' needs and potentials. Experts

in the field (Scarborough et al. 1997) have defined farmer-led extension as a

multidirectional communication process between and among extension staff and farmers.

It involves the sharing, sourcing and development of knowledge and skills in order to

meet farming needs and develop innovative capacity among all actors. Farmers have a

controlling interest and are 'center stage' as the protagonists, and they play a key role in

technology development and delivery. This approach seeks to involve farmers in training

other farmers and trainers, and in sharing, sourcing and transferring knowledge and skills.

The Norwegian farmer-led Research and Extension Circles (R/E) constitute an

example of successful farmer led programs. The circles revitalized the Norwegian

extension services and contributed to increased agricultural production and more active

agricultural communities in rural areas. The R/E circles are farmer-initiated, based on

farmer membership and run by its members. Haug (1991) attributes the success of the

program to the farmer-led structure, along with government-supported fee based private

extension, on-farm adaptive research and the combination of both adaptive research and

extension.

Variations of farmer-led extension include Farmer-to-Farmer extension, Farmer

Field Schools (FFS), the problem census/problem solving approach; NGO-government

collaboration; and other approaches that provide limited external assistance that enable

farmers to manage, adapt and spread innovations through their own efforts (The World









Bank, 2003a). A brief discussion of the most relevant approaches to Farmer-led

extension is provided next.

Farmer-to-farmer extension

Farmer-to-farmer extension, in which farmers are the primary extension agents, is

probably the most common form of farmer-led extension. It involves farmers

undertaking extension activities, with or without the support of external agents

(Scarborough et al. 1997). Holt-Gimenez in IFAD (1996) has referred to the movement

as "farmers helping their brothers... so that they can help themselves... to find solutions

and not be dependent on a technician or on the bank. (p.1)" The pure farmer-to-farmer

vein is often found in areas where appropriate government services are almost non-

existent or recommended technologies have been inappropriate. Farmer-to-farmer is

founded on a spirit of voluntarism from within highly motivated groups. The two pillars

of this methodology are farmer innovation and farmer solidarity (IFAD, 1996). In other

words, it is largely self-contained and self-reliant. Scarborough et al. (1997) affirm that

the campesino-a-campesino (peasant-to-peasant) movement in Latin America, the best-

known farmer-to-farmer extension network, typifies this approach. This network is

active in many Latin American Countries as well as in parts of Southeast Asia and Africa

and is characterized by

* The emergence of a 'movement' initiated and sustained by farmers.
* The generation of most innovations by farmers themselves, with occasional
external support, for instance from an NGO.
* The provision of training by farmers, to farmers, often through the creation of a
structure of farmer-promoters and farmer-trainers.

The basic methodological principles for farmer-to-farmer extension detailed by

Bunch (1982) in Two Ears of Corn have not changed significantly (Scarborough et al.









1997). These principles include obtaining rapid and recognizable results, starting small

and going slowly, limiting the introduction of technology, using small-scale

experimentation and developing a multiplier effect. Nonetheless, the authors state that

the advantage of these basic principles lies in their flexibility. Holt-Gimenez in IFAD

(1996) recognizes that the development of the campesino-a-campesino technological

basket has been unsystematic, evolving as campesinos from different areas become

interested and begin experimenting with and sharing their innovations. The campesino

learning methods documented in the technological basket are deductive, hands-on and

frequently laced with humor and local folklore.

Among the benefits and advantages of farmer-to-farmer extension (Scarborough et

al.1997 p.35) are as follows:

* Language: Farmer-extensionists speak the same language as their colleagues, both
literally and culturally, easing communication and understanding.

* Relevance: Farmer-extensionists are likely to understand their colleagues
constraints, potentials and aspirations better than more educated, non-farming
professional extensionists.

* Availability: Farmer-extensionists can often be available at times more suited to
other farmers than professional extensionists find possible.

* Accountability: Farmer-extensionists working in their own communities are more
directly accountable to the farmers they serve than is the case with professional
extension officers. This is particularly true if farmer communities contribute to the
costs of farmer-extensionists work.

* Credibility: Farmer-extensionists have the same background, and farm under
similar constraints as other farmers. Their demonstrations of new technologies and
management practices can therefore be more convincing than those undertaken by
professional extensionists.

* Sustainability: At the end of the project, the farmer extensionists stay in the
community and may continue to pursue agricultural or other rural-development
initiatives.









However, this approach is likely to be limited to those areas for which new

technologies are available, and it is unlikely to be offered to farmers through public

extension services. Still many experts suggest that extension's new priorities should be

"farmer-led" and believe that the concept of "farmer first and last" have come to

prominence (Rivera et al. 1991).

Farmer field schools

Farmer field schools (FFS) are another form of farmer-led extension because of the

central role farmers have in the program. FFS is a participatory approach designed

originally as a way to introduce knowledge on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) at the

grassroots level to advance the principle of stakeholder participation in program decision-

making with a view of eventually giving full responsibility to stakeholders for program

development (Rivera et al. 2001). The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) first

introduced the program to rice farmers in Southeast Asia in 1990. FFS has since spread

to other regions, and today it is beginning to develop in Latin America as one of the

alternatives to traditional national extension activities, in such countries as Bolivia,

Ecuador and Peru (Rivera et al. 2001).

FFS is mainly used in IPM programs and represents an attempt to get away from

centralized extension practices and return the locus of interaction to the farmers' fields

(Scarborough et al., 1997). The FFS approach relies on participatory training methods to

convey knowledge through field schools to make farmers into ".. confident pest experts,

self-teaching experimenters, and effective trainers of other farmers" (p.20) (Wiebers,

1993 cited by The World Bank, 2003b). The FFS experience entails some 9 to 12 half

day sessions of hands-on, farmer experimentation and nonformal training to a group of 20

to 25 farmers during a single crop growing season. Initially, paid trainers lead this









village-level program, delivering elements and practical solutions for overall good crop

management practices and through group interactions. Attendees sharpen their decision-

making abilities and are empowered by learning leadership, communication and

management skills (van de Fliert, 1993 cited by The World Bank, 2003b). FFS requires

that professional researchers and extension officers become experts both in farming and

in facilitating farmers to undertake their own research.

Some of the major criticisms of FFS include issues about accountability, financial

sustainability and dissemination of knowledge by trained farmers. Because it requires

significant investments in time, trainers and facilities, FFS can be an expensive way of

diffusing new science-based knowledge and other information to farmers. Quizon et al.

(2000) add that the intense training activities are expensive per farmer trained, and they

imply that the amount of service actually delivered by each farmer would be small when

considered from a national perspective. The World Bank (2003b) suggest that cost

effectiveness and financial sustainability could be improved if farmer-trainers were to

become the main trainers, perhaps with significant community funding, and if informal

farmer-to-farmer communications were to facilitate knowledge diffusion. A study

conducted by Rola et al. (2002) with Rice farmers in Iloilo, Philippines suggest that there

is very little diffusion of FFS acquired knowledge from field school graduates to other

community members presumably because the content of the training is not easy to

transmit in casual, nonstructured communications. Still the findings of this study imply

that graduates retain their field school acquired knowledge.

FFS can be complementary to farmer-to-farmer extension, and most programs

encourage their participants to share their methods and results through farmer-to-farmer









extension. Quizon et al. (2000) affirm that FFS provide an interesting perspective as an

alternative learning or problem-solving approach. They state that other authors see FFS

not as an extension approach for disseminating information, but as an empowerment and

citizenship opportunity.

The problem census/problem solving (PC/PS) approach

The problem census is a participatory, group-based extension method that enables

farmers to identify their needs and problems, and recommend appropriate solutions and

action by building on the knowledge and experience of the farmers involved

(Scarborough et al., 1997). Experiences in Nepal and Bangladesh document that farmers

are demonstrating great interest in and enthusiasm for incorporating their felt needs into

the planning process, and they are coming up with their own ways for meeting those

needs. Strengths of the PC/PS include a decrease in the communication gap between

farmers, researchers and extension staff and an increased presence of extension staff in

the communities. This has led to increased farmer participation, built up farmers

confidence, increased trust in extension staff and most importantly the development of

realistic plans and programs. The problems of this approach include a lack of training for

facilitators and of qualified personnel within extension to face some of the multi-

disciplinary issues identified during the process.

The NGO-government collaboration

During the last decade several factors have led (some would say pushed)

government agencies and NGOs toward more collaborative efforts in agricultural

research and extension. This has been caused by two major factors. First, although

traditionally dominated by the public sector, in many parts of the world extension

services have been effectively provided to thousands of communities through innovative,









resource-intensive NGO programs. Secondly, public sector capabilities have been

reduced by shrinking budgets, the declining relative contribution of agriculture to the

economy, and poor returns on investments (Scarborough et al. 1997). As a result,

comparative advantages have moved NGOs and governments to work together in order to

provide better research and extension support to agricultural production. Collaborative

linkages between government agencies and NGOs focus primarily on concrete, time

bound activities such as training programs, but linkages can include a multitude of

activities (Scarborough, 1997). Farrington (1997) considers of crucial importance the

fact that because NGOs are independent, they are not mandated to collaborate with

research and extension services in the way that government departments might be. He

posits that NGOs will only collaborate if governments have something useful to offer.

Although much has been said about NGOs, it is important to review some of the

strengths and weakness that affect collaboration with extension. According to Farrington

(1997) the strengths of NGOs include

* Horizontally short lines of communication that allow flexibility and quick
responses to clients needs and to changing circumstances.
* Access to remote areas. NGO concerns with the rural poor means that they often
maintain a field presence in remote locations where it is typically difficult to do so.
* Access to new tools and methodologies. NGOs have pioneered a wide range of
participatory methods for diagnosis, innovative dissemination and have even
introduced system approaches for testing new technology. Often these efforts have
extended into processing and marketing as with soy in Bangladesh and cocoa in
Bolivia.
* NGOs experience with group formation based on felt needs has proven to be a
valuable asset.


In contrast, some of the weaknesses of NGOs outlined by Farrington (1997) include









* Small size, independence and differences in philosophy limit learning from each
other's experience and against the creation of forums, whether at the national or
provincial level.

* Some fashionable locations have become densely populated by the diversity of
NGOs. Problems have arisen not merely from competition for the same clientele,
but of some NGOs undermining the activities of others (Overseas Development
Institute, 1992).

* Some NGOs are more accountable to external funding agencies than to the clientele
they claim to serve. Donor pressure to achieve short term impact, combined with
the lack of cross-learning has led in some cases to the promotion of inappropriate
technology such as protected horticultural systems in the Bolivian Andes (Overseas
Development Institute, 1991).

* The fact that some NGOs have placed great emphasis on volunteerism, sometimes
promoted at the expense of financially sustainable alternatives.

Farrington (1997) found that evident in SIDA's farm-level forestry project in North

Vietnam where the scope for supporting an emerging private nursery sector in the

provision of technical advice was ignored, and complex and largely voluntary advisory

services at the village level were promoted instead.

Collaboration between NGOs and governments can take place in various forms

Scarborough et al. (1997). Common collaboration activities include problem

identification, planning, technology development and the provision of critical production

inputs such as information, credit, seeds and animals. Furthermore, Farrington (1997)

has found what he calls example configurations that offer potential for replication and

adaptation in three areas: providing technical advice and feedback, training, and working

with groups. Experiences of NGO-government collaboration are mixed. In Chile, the

government has contracted private technology companies to cater to the larger

commercial farmers, and NGOs for small subsistence-oriented farmers. However,

similar attempts in India have been largely unsuccessful. One reason for this is the NGO









concern that many of the technical recommendations from governmental research

institutes are not relevant to small-scale farmers. Another reason is that mechanisms for

bottom-up feedback in existing technologies and for articulation of demands for new

technologies remain weak (Farrington, 1997).

Nonetheless, the potential impact of NGO-government collaboration is that it

allows institutions to avoid duplicated efforts in the field and to increase coverage. Still,

Scarborough et al. (1997) considers it an uneasy partnership that in many cases is still

built around the lack of trust and deep suspicion on both sides. Difficulties over

ownership and control of individual (or joint) resources often remain an obstacle.

Differing institutional agendas may prevent collaboration from being based upon a shared

vision and common objectives. A common problem faced by NGOs has been that

government agencies seek to implement change more rapidly than NGOs feel is

sustainable. Scarborough et al. (1997) concluded that collaboration between government

agencies and NGOs is usually more difficult than originally thought. In addition,

Scarborough et al. (1997) outline important lessons learned from collaboration based on

the experiences of 70 participants to the farmer-led extension workshop held in the

Philippines in 1995. These lessons show that

* Farmers can be very active partners in extension and can set an agenda and direct a
process in which government agencies and NGOs can participate to meet the needs
of the farmers and their communities.
* Whatever extension approach is used, it should ensure that farmers are encouraged
to share their experiences with others.
* Benefits can be achieved from NGO-government collaboration.
* During the process of collaboration, stereotypical views held by one group about
the other partner can be broken down, even if quite slowly.
* It is important to get the agenda and parameters of collaboration right at the outset.









Delivery of Livestock Services

The livestock sector plays a crucial role in the economies of many developing

countries as an important source of protein-rich products. It is a vital generator of

employment. For many farmers in the developing world, livestock also provides a means

of storing wealth, a cushion for food shortages, and a source of fertilizer and/or fuel, a

means of transportation, and as source of traction in agricultural production (The World

Bank, 1992). Nonetheless, the ability of the sector to attain its full productive potential is

influenced by the availability and quality of livestock support services (Umali et al.

1994).

According to The World Bank (1992) livestock services can be grouped into two

major functional categories: health and production services. Health services include

curative and preventive services and the provision of pharmaceuticals. Curative services

include the provision of clinical care, while preventive services consist of vaccination,

vector control, eradication programs, and disease control measures such as quarantines,

the slaughter of diseased animals and movement restrictions. On the other hand,

production services include research and extension relating to improved livestock

husbandry and the provision of input supplies such as seeds, feeds and artificial

insemination. Production services try to improve livestock productivity by such means as

genetic upgrading of livestock through artificial insemination, the improved formulation

of feeds, the use of improved forages and changes in management practices.

Consequently, the major players that shape the livestock services sector are

veterinarians and veterinary paraprofessionals, stockowners (commercial livestock

farmers, sedentary or mixed farm producers, pastoralists, and small backyard raisers),

herders, consumers, government, inter-governmental, non-governmental donors in









developing countries, and private entrepreneurs providing specialized services. In

addition, veterinary paraprofessionals (field technicians, field vaccinators, producer

representatives) assist veterinarians with their duties. In some countries, the limited

number of trained veterinarians and their unwillingness to serve in remote rural areas has

made paraprofessionals very valuable. In most cases veterinarians, sale agents of

agribusiness and veterinary pharmaceutical companies, provide information regarding

livestock upgrading, improved production practices, hygiene and sanitation, and feeding

as a complementary service to farmers. Increasing competition in the livestock sector

market has led to complementary livestock services extension, designed to promote and

strengthen customer loyalty and expand market shares (Umali et al. 1994).

Countries like Argentina, Brazil and the United States have seen an increase in the

number of private consulting firms specializing in the provision of technical and

extension services. These private consulting firms thrive because their services are

tailored to the needs of specific farmers or farmer groups and are not necessarily relevant

to other producers, and this minimizes free-rider problems. Umali et al. (1994) affirmed

that in Argentina and Brazil there is a growing tendency toward market segmentation in

extension services. Private consulting firms tend to cater to the specialized technical and

extension needs of the large-scale farmers, while government efforts have concentrated

on the medium and small-scale enterprises.

The provision of livestock service has often been in the domain of the public sector

(Umali et al. 1994). Over time, a growing diversity has developed in the manner in

which livestock services are delivered in individual countries. In most developing

countries, livestock services still remain a government responsibility, while in more









developed countries, some support service functions of the government are being

performed in partnership with, or have been transferred to, the private sector. de Hann

(1999) foresees strong support for livestock development in the near future as there is

now increasing realization, that livestock development programs can play an important

role in reducing rural poverty in the developing world. Second, the demand for animal

products in the developing world is growing fast, and it can be expected to continue.

Recent projections show that over the next twenty years, the demand for meat in

developing countries will increase by about 2.7% and the demand for milk by 3.2% (de

Hann, 1999). In response to these events de Hann believes there is a change in focus

from pure production, to an increasing attention to the milk and meat production of

smallholders and mixed farmers. He believes that improving the national supply of

livestock products is increasingly seen as a pure private responsibility while public

services are increasingly being concentrated on environmental mitigation and poverty

alleviation.

Importance and Types of Needs Assessments

A major struggle for extension is being responsive to the needs of clientele. Needs

assessments are a systematic process to identify clientele needs in order to set program

priorities and make decisions about the allocation of resources (Seevers et al. 1997).

Needs assessment helps determine if gaps exist between what is and what should be in

terms of the outcomes of extension programs and then determining the priority of these

needs (McCaslin & Tibezinda, 1997). Some of the most popular approaches used to

identify needs in communities are: needs assessment, customer profiling and asset-based

analysis. The needs assessment approach is very popular in extension and community

development organizations while asset-based analysis and costumer profiling are used









less. On the international scene, an increasing emphasis has been placed on citizen

involvement through bottom-up and grassroots program planning and development

(Swanson et al. 1997).

Techniques used in needs assessment include individual (face-to-face interviews,

questionnaires, key informant interviews), group (focus groups, delphi technique,

nominal and informal groups), secondary source (census reports, records and previous

studies) and rapid rural appraisal. The most direct method of assessing needs is to ask

potential learners what their interest level is for a particular educational topic (Bielema &

Sofranko, 1983). If done well, needs assessment is both a process and a method. As a

process, it can build leadership, group cohesion, and a sense of local involvement in the

community or clientele. As a method, needs assessment is a tool that helps a community

plan for and implement strategies in areas as diverse as crime watch programs, business

expansion efforts, and youth recreation (Israel & Ilvento, 1995).

Needs assessment has long been an important program development tool, but one

that is often expensive to undertake. A disadvantage of this approach is that it often

requires staff that are well educated to conduct interviews and facilitate focus groups in

order to gather information that reflects the needs and real problems of clientele. Another

difficulty is that problems identified can be the cause of other problems that could be

ignored by respondents and therefore not be included in the needs assessment. On the

other hand, needs assessment can identify unforeseen needs in the community or

problems that had not been considered. Advantages of this approach include evidence of

support for policy options, and an increase public involvement in policymaking and

program development.









The second approach is customer profiling. Bazik and Feltes (1999), state that

customer profiles include the following information: demographics, enterprises, preferred

methods of receiving information, business management practices and major sources of

information used in making management decisions. Balanko-Dickson (2001) has found

that most companies experience 80% of their business from 20% of their customers, and

as a result, it makes sense to direct time and energy toward customers who are important.

The company attempts to really get to know them, to understand their buying patterns,

interests, tastes and attitudes. For extension, customer profiling can have great

implications. As discussed by Bazik and Feltes (1999), customer profiling can allow

extension to know in greater detail the segments of population it is serving and have a

deeper understanding of their wants and needs. The use of costumer profiling can direct

resources to develop programs that are extremely interesting and appealing to clientele.

Marketing strategies have proven to be very successful for the private sector. However,

extension has not taken advantage of this resource to the fullest and by using costumer

profiling it would be the first step toward developing marketing strategies. The third

approach is the use of an asset-based approach. This approach focuses on a very realistic

perspective. It outlines the importance of identifying available resources and building

from them. This approach allows the use of resources in a very efficient way. However,

one important criticism is that clientele needs and wants can often be ignored. As a

result, clientele might feel that programs are not appealing to them. Agents that use the

asset-based approach have to make sure they market their programs extensively and to let

clientele know how the areas being targeted benefit them directly.









Education in Rural Areas

Education and training are the two most powerful weapons in the fight against rural

poverty and for rural-development. Unfortunately, these are among the most neglected

aspects of rural-development interventions by national governments and by donors

(Gasperini and Maguire, 2002). In addition, The World Bank (2002) has found that

although the wider context of extension and education services is key to informing and

influencing rural household decisions. Unfortunately rural areas usually lag behind urban

areas in their access to information. Such lags jeopardize the ability of rural people to

realize their full potential and improve their economic, social and environmental

conditions. The researchers stress the importance that rural information and education

have in unleashing the potential of rural people and enabling them to change their living

situations and bring about sustainable development.

Gasperini and Maguire (2002) from FAO state that educational opportunities are

not equally distributed. Quality of education is lower in rural areas and one reason is that

curricula and textbooks in primary and secondary schools are often urban biased.

Education is irrelevant to the needs of rural people, and it seldom focuses on issues such

as skills of life and rural-development. Furthermore, curricula of vocational and

technical agricultural education and higher education still focus heavily on production

and productivity, and are often obsolete.

Accordingly, Rivera (1995) states that agricultural education and training must be

an integral part of any agricultural and rural-development efforts since out of school rural

populations represent the largest human resource group in almost every developing

country, and the most urgently in need of well-planned programs aimed at agricultural

education. This group of farmers, fishermen, foresters, young adults and youth comprise









70 to 90% of the rural population. They need comprehensive nonformal, community

based, on-the-farm education and training programs aimed at the development of rural

enterprise as well as more efficient farm production. Gasperini & Maguire (2002)

suggests that the concept and practice of agricultural education should be redesigned in

the developing countries as education for rural-development and food security. Indeed,

many needs are rapidly emerging such as trade-related education on agro-health (plant

and animal health and food safety), value-added agro-processing, and agro-market

competitiveness. These needs arise from the obligations that countries take on as

members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the increasing urgency to build

competitive advantages aimed at global agricultural market niche opportunities.

Based on these facts it can be inferred that a large majority of people in rural areas

who urgently need extension and educational training programs are adults. As such, it is

important to understand the adult learner.

Principles of Adult Education

Facilitating the learning experience for adults necessitates an understanding of

adulthood in conjunction with the learning process. A wide range of concepts are

invoked when the word adult is used Mott (2002). Some tend to think of adults in terms

of age. Rogers (1996) has stated that no single age can define an adult even within one

society, let alone a comparative basis, because legal and social liabilities come into play

at different ages. He argues that a more satisfactory approach may be to identify some of

those characteristics inherent within the concept of adulthood. Though they may differ

by the person and culture, far-sightedness, self-control, established and accepted values,

security, experience and autonomy are among the most common ones.









Research has shown that adults and children learn differently. Knowles (1990)

determined that two types of teaching are involved with learning: pedagogy and

andragogy. Table 2-3 demonstrates the differences between the two approaches.

Table 2-3. Characteristics of Pedagogy and Andragogy.
Pedagogy Andragogy
Dependent learner Self directed and independent
Motivation based on external rewards Internal incentives and curiosity
Climate of learning: formal authority, Informal climate with mutual respect,
competitive and judgemental consensual, collaborative and supportive
Planning done by teacher Participatory decision-making
Diagnosis of needs done by teacher Mutual assessment
Delivery by transmission and assigned Inquiry projects, independent study and
Readings experimental techniques
External evaluation Self assessment
Source: Baren-Stein & Draper (1993) (p.255).

Pedagogy refers to the art of teaching children and andragogy to the art of teaching

adults. These two philosophies are not necessarily age dependent, but represent different

"philosophical orientations or approaches to teaching and learning (Barer-Stein &

Draper, 1993 p.4)".

Adult Education is a process whereby adults gain knowledge or skills in a set of

organized activities designed to enhance their quality of life involving educators. An

adult's ability to acquire new information may have more to do with lifestyle, social

roles, and attitudes rather than with an innate ability to learn (Seevers et al., 1997).

Malcolm Knowles (1990) has outlined Nine Characteristics of Adult Learners to

use when dealing with any adult learner regardless of level, subject or situation (p. 194).

* Adults need to control their learning.
* Adults need to feel that learning has immediate utility, ie., that the application of
ideas has to be relayed.
* Adults need to feel that learning focuses on issues that directly concern them.
* Adults need to test their learning as they go along, rather than receive background
theory and general information.
* Adults need to anticipate how they will use their learning.









* Adults need to expect performance improvement to result from their learning.
* Adult learning is greatest when it maximizes available resources.
* Adult learning requires a climate that is collaborative, respectful, mutual and
informal.
* Adult learning relies on information that is appropriate to what is known at a given
time (i.e., it is developmentally paced).

In conclusion, adult learners require a personal productive time, where meaningful

connections are made between previous knowledge and experiences with new bodies of

knowledge and/or skills that will lead to immediate results.

Implications for extension include selecting educational delivery formats and

teaching methods that provide learning opportunities that produce the desired learning

outcomes (Birkenholz, 1999). Furthermore, extension agents need to understand the

social situation, physical conditions and infrastructure of the individual farmers

(Lionberger and Gwin, 1982). In the past, approaches to agricultural changes have

tended to treat farmers' methods of gaining information as a closed system, and it has

become more obvious that adults and especially farmers' systems of information

acquisition and decision-making are involved with linkages in a broad social context

(Bruening et al., 1992).

Overview of delivery methods used in extension

To effectively facilitate the learning process, learners must engage in activities

that expand their knowledge base from what is known to encompass to that which was

previously unknown. Richardson et al. (1996) recognize that extensive learning research

has consistently shown that learners need and want to gain some type of experience with

new information as well as to be supported and reinforced in the learning process. In the

process of receiving information, gaining experience with it, and being reinforced in the

learning process learners need to assimilate or integrate the new information with









knowledge they already possess. Thus, to promote effective and efficient learning, a

delivery system should include methods, whenever possible, that provide desired

experiential opportunities for the learner, reinforce the learner, and provide opportunities

for the learner to integrate new information with existing knowledge and skills.

Delivery methods can be classified according to the nature of the contact, the

form of communication or function (Seevers et al. 1997). Furthermore, delivery methods

can be classified according to the stage at which the method can be used in the learning

process as illustrated by Richardson (1996).

Based on this last classification, delivery methods are classified into four

categories: experiential, reinforcement, integrative, and other. Table 2-4 provides the list

of the delivery methods that are included in each category.

The three initial categories indicate the stage at which the various delivery

methods can be used most effectively in a program delivery system.

* Other methods are applicable in a wide variety of systems or that can be used for
limited or special situations. Obviously, many of the methods listed can fit under
more than one category.

* Experiential methods allow the learner to gain experience with or to feel the
information presented. This experience may occur through physical activity or it
may involve the senses, emotions, or social interaction, depending on the content of
the educational program. As the Father of Extension (Seaman A. Knapp) stated:
"What a man hears, he may doubt; what he sees, he may possibly doubt, but what
he does, he cannot doubt (Rasmussen, 1989)."

* Reinforcement delivery methods provide informational, emotional, or social
support for the learner to facilitate learning and enhance or maintain the motivation
to continue in the learning process.

* Integrative methods provide the learner opportunities to discuss, clarify, or
otherwise gain greater understanding of new information that can be classified.
These methods generally provide opportunities for learners to merge new
information with their existing knowledge.









Table 2-4. Delivery methods used in extension services.
Experiential Reinforcement Integrative


Result demonstration
On farm test
Tour
Field day
Workshop
Games
Analysis of data
Role play
Case study
Networking

Skit
Audio cassette


Conference
Convention
Seminar
Panel
Meeting
Symposium
Colloquy
Dialogue
Institute
Buzz group


Factsheet
Notebook
Leaflet or flier
Magazine article
Journal article
Poster
Book
Newsletter
Home study kit
Pamphlet or
booklet


Discussion group
Brainstorming


Radio
Newspaper
Movie
Film strip
Photograph
Fair
Exhibit
Lecture
Speech
Bulletin board


Show
Broadcast
television


Video cassette Audience reaction
team
Interactive video Listening team
Audio compact disk Interview
Video compact disk Teleconference
Method Telephone
demonstration conservation
Computer network
Personal visit
Office visit
Source: Richardson et al. (1996) (p. 2).

According to Birkenholz (1999, p. 44), when selecting an appropriate delivery

method, educators should consider the following:

* Objectives and goals. The educator should determine if the purpose of the
instruction is to create awareness, interest, gain knowledge, to apply new
information, to teach or perform a skill or to help learners modify, adopt or clarify
their attitudes or values.

* Content. The content will allow the educator to search for specific methods.

* Resources. The cost of instruction and availability of funds to deliver the program
should be analyzed. Adequate facilities and equipment should also be taken into
account.


Other









* Skills of the educator. The skills and expertise of educators or extension agents are
important to farmers. Farmers come to programs to learn new things and will often
test their instructor's skills and knowledge.

* Size and educational level of the target group.

* Desired interaction of learners among themselves and the instructor.

* Available time. These are some of the main considerations that should be taken into
account when designing and carrying out extension programs for farmers. As an
educator it is necessary to take into account that each group of learners has different
learning styles and preferences. These differences should challenge the educator to
bring a wide variety of delivery methods into the program to enhance the learning
experience of all learners.

Organization and Development of Farmer Groups

ISNAR (2002) categorizes farmer groups into three broad organizational types:

local grassroots organizations, federations or networks and farmer associations. Local

grassroots organizations are formally constituted groups with memberships drawn from a

community or groups of communities where interactions are mostly face-to-face and

within a horizontal organizational structure. For example, women and peasant groups

have emerged in countries like Honduras with the collaboration of NGOs. Federations or

networks are multi-tiered organizations composed of an apex body and base units.

Examples of these are the National Federation of Labour in the Philippines, the General

Agricultural Workers Union in Ghana, the National Federation of the Landowners and

Agriculture Shareholders in Romania, the National Confederation of Agriculture Workers

in Brazil (IUF, 1997) and the Federaci6n Nacional de Agricultores y Ganaderos de

Honduras (FENAGH). On the other hand, farmer organizations (FO) are vertically

integrated organizations with a single governing board, usually with specialized

committees and subunits. These are legally constituted entities that have an identifiable

membership, a governing body and rules for decision-making.









Chamala and Shingi (1997) have categorized farmer organizations into two types:

community-based, resource-orientated farmer organizations; and commodity-based,

market-orientated farmer organizations. The characteristics of community-based,

resource-orientated farmer organizations include that they are generally small, have well

defined geographical areas, are predominantly concerned about inputs and the client

group is highly diversified in terms of crops and commodities. On the other hand,

market-orientated farmer organizations specialize in a single commodity and opt for

value added products that have expanded markets. These organizations are generally

small and operate in a competitive environment and the rate of success is generally

determined by their capacity to arrange for major investments and a continuous flow of

raw materials. Success stories about these type of organizations have been documented

in India with dairy FOs such as Anand Milk (Chamala and Shingi, 1997) and the Camara

Nacional de Productores de Leche of Costa Rica (Camara Nacional de Productores de

Leche, 2004).

Research suggests that farmer groups are key to the development of the agriculture

and livestock sector. FOs generally represent farmer's demands and interests and provide

support services for technology adoption and develop members' capacities to use

technology (ISNAR, 2002). Since FOs are community-based, and better placed to

understand the social, economic and technical needs of farmers, they are ideal

organizations for extension to work with. However, many FOs lack capacity,

information, new technology, finances and resources (SACRED-AFRICA, 2003).

Therefore, it is important to strengthen FOs so that they can exert an effective demand for









agriculture-related services and become active partners in the process of technology

change.

Addressing the issue of small farmer group associations is both important and

timely according to FAO (1999). It is timely because with the privatization of markets

and downsizing of public sector programs, many farmer groups are struggling for

survival as government subsidies are reduced and markets reformed. Many of the largest

government systems have neglected the opportunity to organize groups, empower their

clientele and press for equity (Axinn et al. 1997). Furthermore, studies have revealed that

belonging to a farmer association or other organized groups contributes to the adoption of

sustainable agriculture practices as is the case in Rond6nia, Brazil in a study conducted

by Caviglia-Harris (2001). The participation of farmers in groups often increases

communication between farmers and as a result encourages a sense of peer pressure

among members.

Leadership Development

One of the great challenges leadership development specialists face is how to best

facilitate the development of community leaders, given the social and economic

challenges faced by these communities. According to Stedman (2004), Bass (1990, p.78)

defined leadership as

... the focus of group processes, as a matter of personality, as a matter of inducing
compliance, as the exercise of influence, as particular behaviors, as a form of persuasion,
as a power relation, as an instrument to achieve goals, as an effect of interaction, as a
differentiated role, as initiation of structure, and as many combinations of these.

Burns (1978) defined leadership as the process of mobilizing, by persons with

certain motives and values, various economic, political, and other resources, in a context

of competition and conflict, in order to realize goals independently or mutually held by









both leaders and followers. As it can be inferred, leadership includes many variables, the

leader him/herself, the followers, the situation, the task, the relationships and more.

Many authors have discussed the differences between leadership and management.

Kotter (1990) argues the functions of management are to provide order and consistency

and in contrast, leadership is to produce change and movement. On the other hand,

Northouse (2001) has stated that the functions of leadership and management are similar,

but a difference exists. Historically, Northouse identifies leadership from the early

studies of Aristotle, whereas the study of management begun in the early 1900s as a

response to the industrialization of society.

According to Apps (1993), emerging ways of thinking in extension will lead

organizations to have a new view of competition, examine the differences between

efficient and effective, question specialization, broadly define knowledge to include

multiple perspectives, and realize that change isn't constant. Change itself is changing.

It is increasingly unpredictable and as a result, next to impossible to prepare for. As a

result Apps believes that leaders in extension need to: know what they believe and value,

live with paradox, be risk takers, study the context, inspire, empower, build bridges

among people and among ideas, challenge the process, embrace ambiguity, serendipity,

encourage artistry, appreciate humor, collaborate and above all be guided by quality.

Rivera (2003) considers that poor leadership is a serious problem in extension. He

believes that organizations work the way they do because of the way people work in

these organizations, and often enough the way they work is a reflection of their

leadership. He states that to be truly effective, leadership involves leaders at all levels in

order to bring about development. Barbuto & Etling (2002) consider that leadership









development is a process, not an event. Furthermore, it is a process that requires a long-

term initiative, typically lasting between six and eighteen months. They believe that for

leadership development to occur there most be a variety of developmental experiences

and also the ability and opportunity to learn from these experiences. In addition, they

state individuals who have gained experiences, but haven't learned from them (or

learning without practical experiences) will not experience any substantive leadership

development. The key elements of leadership development experiences include

assessment, challenge and support. Consequently, these experiences must be carefully

planned to incorporate each of these three components. Finally, they conclude that

effective programs are those grounded in solid leadership theory and research.

In contrast, Sandmann & Vandenberg (1995) believe that leadership development

is not a commodity to deliver or a how-to manual or an iteration of current practice. It is,

rather, a perspective, a set of ideas, a way of thinking based on the architecture

underlying multiple variations of community action leadership development. Community

action leadership development is leadership development for community organizations

and it aims to develop individual's abilities to build both a group community spirit and its

capacity to engage in effective action. Organizational development is the increase of a

group's capacity to engage in concerted and effective action to achieve group goals.

Finally, Sandmann and Vandenberg consider that leadership development is the growth

of individual's capacities to facilitate community development and organizational

development.

Leadership development programs have been launched in several countries. The

New Zealand Young Farmers Leadership Development Program sponsored by the









Ministry of Agriculture in March 2004 is an example of such initiatives. The program

was initiated by young farmers to increase the number of young people becoming

involved in rural community and industry leadership roles. The primary objective of this

program was to develop young members so they may participate more effectively in

organizations related with the agricultural sector throughout their lives.

Conclusion

This literature review chapter was comprised of the following: extension in the

development of the agricultural and livestock sector, factors that affect extension

performance, approaches to extension services, delivery of livestock services, importance

and types of needs assessments, education in rural areas, principles of adult education,

overview of delivery methods, organization and development of farmer groups and

leadership within farmer groups. Literature documents that there are potential reasons to

assume that the quality and availability of extension services to dairy farmers in

Honduras, and this plays a major role in the productivity of the sector. Our study seeks to

identify farmers educational needs, based on the subject areas highlighted in this

literature review. The next chapter focuses on methods and procedures utilized in our

study.














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Chapter 1 provided a description of the situation of milk production in Honduras,

the factors affecting it and of the extension services available to dairy farmers in

Honduras. Chapter 1 also identified the need of the study, purpose of the study,

objectives of the study, the limitations and significance.

Chapter 2 presented relevant literature to the areas covered in our study. Included

was a discussion of the following topic areas: 1) extension in the development of the

agricultural and livestock sector, 2) factors that affect the performance of extension, 3)

approaches to extension services, 4) delivery of livestock services, 5) importance and

types of needs assessments, 6) education in rural areas, 7) principles of adult education,

8) overview of delivery methods, 9) organization and development of farmer groups and

10) leadership within farmer groups.

This chapter explains the methods used to accomplish the objectives of the study.

The main purpose of our study was to determine the perceptions of three groups of dairy

farmers (New CREL members, Old CREL members and large farmers) on extension's

educational delivery in the northern coast of Honduras. For our study, milk collection

centers known as CRELs were categorized into New and Old CREL. New CRELs were

either in the process of starting operations or had recently started operating at the time of

our study while Old CRELs had started operations in the years 2000 and 2001. Large

farmers were not affiliated to CRELs but where considered leaders in the same

geographical areas where CRELs were located. The five objectives for the study were to:









1) Determine the perceptions of three groups of dairy farmers about extension services, 2)

Determine educational delivery methods used in extension programs offered to dairy

farmers in Honduras, 3) Determine preferred educational delivery methods for dairy

farmers in Honduras, 4) Determine felt and ascribed educational needs for dairy farmers

in the north coast of Honduras and 5) Determine perceptions of dairy farmers on open

market policies, and its effects on the dairy industry in relation to educational needs.

This chapter will describe the methods and procedures used to accomplish the

objectives of the study as it relates tol) research design, 2) sample selection, 3)

procedure, 4) instrumentation, 5) data collection, and 6) data analysis.

Research Design

This is an exploratory descriptive study of dairy farmers in the North Coast of

Honduras. An extensive review of secondary sources included reports from the Ministry

of Agriculture of Honduras, the Directorate of Agricultural Science and Technology

(DICTA), the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture (IICA), LSU Ag

Center, the Central American Federation for the Dairy Sector (FECALAC), the IV

National Agriculture Census of Honduras, the Instituto Nacional de Estadistica (INE).

Additionally, interviews with key people of the dairy industry were used to determine the

research design.

The study made use of three different structured interview guides to collect the

necessary information to accomplish the objectives of the study. The first structured

interview guide was designed for large farmers, New CREL and Old CREL farmers.

CREL is the acronym for milk collection and cooling centers in Spanish. The second

structured interview guide was for leaders of the most important farmer associations

located in the same geographical areas where the study was conducted. The third









instrument was designed to collect information from input suppliers and extension

providers working in the same geographical area of the study.

The researcher accomplished objectives 1 through 5 by using a mixed

methodology, descriptive statistics and content analysis from the responses gathered in

the structured interview guides. The advantages of using a mixed methodology or of a

combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies is beneficial to the research

process. It enhances the quality of social assessment (World Bank, 2003b) and

contributes to a deeper understanding of the situation being studied.

Populations

Three groups of farmers: a) 27 New CREL farmers, b) 14 Old CREL members, c)

10 large dairy farmers recognized as leaders by the industry, seven input suppliers and

three representatives of the farmer associations comprised the samples of our study.

Our study took place in the region known as the Cuenca Lechera de Honduras that

comprises four geographical regions. These are the Sula Valley (SV), Atlantida Region

(AT), Yoro (YO) and Col6n (CO). The first two geographical regions are where the first

13 CRELs where established in Honduras. While the newer CREL where established in

the four geographical regions.

Large farmers were purposively selected based on the leadership they provided to

the industry. To select CREL farmers, a total of 20 CRELs were chosen from a total of

63 organized at the time of the study. CRELs where randomly selected based on length

of operation and location. CRELs defined as Old, had 2 years of operation while New

CRELs where either in the process of formation or had recently started operating at the

time of our study. Four CRELs from each region were originally selected (SV, AT, YO

and CO) except for the Atlantida Region where four new and four old CRELs were









chosen. However, interviews were not conducted in the Cuyamel CREL (SV) due to

difficulties with transportation. As a result, the Salitrin CREL located in AT was added

to the study. A description of the location and length of operation of each CREL is

presented in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1. Geographical location and length of operation of CRELs selected for the
study.


Geographical
location
(Department/State)
Sula Valley
Sula Valley
Sula Valley
Sula Valley
Atlintida
Atlintida
Atlintida
Atlintida
Atlintida


Length of
organization*
(New/Old)
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
New


Location of the
CREL


El Zapote
San Buenaventura
Gualala
Cuyamel **
Las Palmas
La Uni6n
Cefalu
San Francisco
Km 17 Rd. to La
Ceiba


Atlintida New Esparta
Atlintida New Ceibita Way
Atlintida New Salitrin***
Atlintida/Col6n New Lis lis
4 Yoro New Juncal
Yoro New Coyoles Aldea
Yoro New Calpules Aldea
Yoro New Maloa
5 Col6n New Corocito
Col6n New La Esperanza
Col6n New Feo
Col6n New Bonito Oriental
Pilot test Sula Valley New Bonanza
Sula Valley Old Taulabe
* Old CRELs had been operating since 2000 and 2001. New CRELs had either started
operating in 2003 or were about to start operations at the time of the study.
** CREL not interviewed.
***CREL added.

Furthermore, two farmers were randomly selected from each CREL except in one

CREL in the Yoro region where three farmers were interviewed. Interviews were


Group









conducted in CRELs or at individual farms, depending on farmer's preferences. The

average length of each interview was 30-45 minutes.

Input suppliers included one veterinarian, two managers of agribusiness firms, one

salesman and two field agents from the Instituto Nacional de Formaci6n Profesional

(INFOP). INFOP is the largest nonformal education provider in Honduras. Regarding

farmer associations, the vice-presidents from the Asociaci6n de Ganaderos y Agricultores

de Sula (AGAS) and the Sociedad de Agricultores y Ganaderos de Olanchito (SAGO)

were interviewed as well as the president of the Asociaci6n de Agricultores y Ganaderos

de Atlantida (AGAA).

Instrumentation

In order to collect the necessary information to complete our study, the researcher

developed an instrument for each group of participants: farmers, input suppliers and

farmer organizations. The researcher developed these instruments after reviewing

surveys from Holman et al. (2003) and the Macon County Survey on Improving Farm

Income through the Production of Specialty Farm Products developed by faculty of the

University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign.

The first structured interview guide developed collected data from the two groups

of farmers in reference to their perceptions of extension services, preferences in regards

to educational program delivery as well as their perceptions about globalization and its

effects on the dairy industry of Honduras and finally a demographic section. The

instrument included an additional question for CREL members in order to gain a deeper

understanding of the changes that have occurred to farmers after they had joined CRELs

(See Appendix A). This instrument had four sections. The first section included

questions regarding availability of extension and other support services, availability of









training for farm workers and others in relation to milk production, preferences regarding

program delivery, factors that affect participation in programs, sources and channels of

information available, training priorities and a recount of positive and negative

experiences regarding extension services. The second section inquired about farmers

perceptions regarding farmer associations. Although this was not an objective in the

study, the researcher considered it was important to document such perceptions due to the

importance these organizations have as facilitators of most educational programs

available and in the acquisition of funds for extension programs. The third section

seeked to determine farmer's perceptions regarding globalization, and the implications

this event can have at the farm, as well as the local and national level. In addition,

farmers were asked if any changes had been made in their farms in preparation for such

event. The fourth and last section of the structured interview guide collected data on

educational level, gender, family involvement in farm activities, farm location and size,

breeds in the herd and the use of best management practices such as the implementation

of artificial insemination, feeding concentrate, milking facilities, use of improved grass

varieties and checking for pregnancy.

The second structured interview guide targeted input suppliers. It was used to

collect information about the type of services provided by suppliers, educational

programs offered and the frequency of these, delivery methods used, felt and ascribed

needs of farmers as seen by providers, limitations and barriers to education for farmers

and providers, opportunities for professional development and the educational level of

providers (See Appendix B).









The third instrument was designed for farmer associations to determine the

educational opportunities provided and sponsored by these associations, farmers

preferences in the delivery of programs as seen by these organizations, felt and ascribed

needs of farmers as seen by farmer associations, farmer's involvement with the

associations, the role of farmer associations in the development of the dairy sector,

organizational structure within the associations, employee profiles and opportunities for

professional development for them, partnerships with extension and other organizations

related with the dairy industry and finally their contributions to increase farmers

understanding of the Central American Free Trade Agreement known as CAFTA (See

Appendix C).

Face and content validity and reliability of the instruments were important

considerations for the researchers to make in determining the credibility of the study.

The scientific validity evidence is based on content, which can be gathered by having

competent professionals who are familiar with the process of the survey examine the

items to judge whether they are appropriate for measuring what they are supposed to

measure (Ary et al. 2002). For this purpose, a panel of two experts from the Department

of Agricultural Education and Communication and two experts from the Animal Science

Department at the University of Florida and Zamorano, Panamerican School of

Agriculture in Honduras reviewed the three structured interview guides for face and

content validity. Validity is defined as the extent to which an instrument measures what

it claims to measure. Consequently, face validity refers to an instrument or document

appearing valid for its intended purpose (Ary et al. 2002). Prior to the study, a pilot test









was conducted with the structured interview guide with four farmers in two CRELs in

order to determine face validity.

Our study is unique because there is limited information available to the dairy

industry of Honduras and the Honduran Government about the characteristics, needs and

perceptions of dairy farmers. Our study is considered pertinent by the experts involved,

and will not only establish baseline data, but will provide with a better understanding of

the participants' educational needs.

Data Collection Procedures

A review of our study by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) preceded any data

collection. The IRB-02, located at the University of Florida, reviews non-medical

research proposals for ethical soundness. The IRB approved the research proposal and

assigned an IRB protocol number (2003-U-536) for our study. The researcher presented

each participant with a translated version of the informed consent letter prior to each

interview. The informed consent described the study, the researcher, and any potential

risks associated with participating in the study. Additionally, participants were provided

the approximate amount of time that participation in the study would require and they

were informed there was no compensation for their participation. Participants opted to

voluntarily participate in the study and confirmation of their acceptance of the terms in

the informed consent was signing the form before the interview started. After formal

approval for the IRB, data collection began. Data collection occurred during the months

of June, July and August 2003. Interviews lasted from 25 to 40 minutes. Formal review

of data occurred during October through April 2004.

The researcher and an additional trained professional conducted the interviews to

farmers. Training for the additional professional included a detailed explanation of the









purpose and objective of the study, a thorough review of the structured interview guide

for farmers and a description of the guidelines to be used during the interview. The

researcher administered all of the interviews to input suppliers and farmer association

representatives. Of the total population targeted for the study, 96% of the original

population was interviewed due to the fact that it was not possible to interview members

from one CREL in the Sula Valley Region.

Data Analysis

The researcher assigned individual study identification numbers to each interview

guide. This was to maintain respondent anonymity. Raw quantitative data from the

structured interview guides was entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. In addition,

data for each farmer was carefully revised for mistakes that could have occurred while

entering the data. A separate spreadsheet was created for each group of farmers. Data

was then analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for

Windows Release 11.5.0 (SPSS, 2002). Descriptive statistics were determined for each

variable.

For the qualitative data sets, content analysis was used to determine trends and

patterns in the data and draw conclusions. Content or document analysis is a research

method applied to written or visual materials for the purpose of identifying specified

characteristics of the material. Furthermore, content analysis focuses on analyzing and

interpreting recorded material within its own content (Ary et al. 2002). In our study, the

answers to open-ended questions in the structured interview guides were classified

according to categories established from a preliminary review of the data. Additional

categories were added if needed. Data was then organized and conclusions were drawn.









Research objectives 1, 2 and 3 were analyzed by relying solely on the quantitative

data set. Frequencies and means were determined for this purpose. The first objective

was to determine farmer's perceptions about extension services. Farmers' structured

interview responses only were taken into account to answer objective 1. Objective 2 was

to determine the educational delivery methods used in extension programs offered to

dairy farmers and objective three was to determine farmers preferred delivery methods.

Farmer's responses as well as input suppliers and farmer organization responses were

taken into account to answer these two objectives.

Objectives 4 and 5 were answered by analyzing qualitative data and quantitative

data sets. Frequencies and means where determined for numerical data and content

analysis was used for qualitative data. The fourth objective consisted of determining felt

and ascribed needs for dairy farmers in the north coast of Honduras. Structured interview

guides from farmers, input suppliers and farmer association's representatives were used

to answer this objective.

The fifth objective was to determine farmer's perceptions regarding globalization

and its effects on the dairy industry in relation to educational needs. To answer objective

5, quantitative data from responses from the farmer and the farmer association structured

interview guides were used to determine farmers perceptions. In addition, open-ended

questions in this section were analyzed in order to assess farmers understanding of the

CAFTA.

Summary

This chapter described our study in terms of the research design, the population of

the study, the instrumentation, and data analysis procedures. In summary, this is a

descriptive study of the perceptions of three groups of dairy farmers in the north coast of









Honduras about extension services, delivery methods, and of globalization and its effects

on the dairy industry in relation to educational needs. The populations under study

included two groups of farmers, input suppliers and farmer association's representatives.

A mixed methodology was used. Accordingly, structured interview guides were

designed for each group of participants (farmers, input suppliers and farmer associations

representatives). The results of our study were obtained by determining descriptive

statistics such as frequencies and means on the quantitative data sets and by determining

trends and patterns via content analysis for qualitative data.

Chapter 4 will report the results of the study. Findings for each objective as well as

the demographics of New CREL, Old CREL and large farmers will be provided.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

The results of the study are presented according to the objectives identified in

Chapter 1: These were to

* Determine the perceptions of three groups of dairy farmers about extension
services.
* Determine educational delivery methods used in extension programs offered to
dairy farmers in Honduras.
* Determine preferred educational delivery methods for dairy farmers in Honduras.
* Determine felt and ascribed educational needs for dairy farmers in the north coast
of Honduras.
* Determine perceptions of dairy farmers on open market policies and its effects on
the dairy industry in relation to educational needs.

Demographics

Background Information

New CREL farmers were members of CRELs that were either in the process of

formation or had recently started operations while Old CREL farmers were part of

centers that had been operating for approximately 2 years. Large farmers had no

affiliation to CRELs but were considered leaders in the same geographical areas where

the CRELs are located.

Selected demographic characteristics were identified for the three groups of farmers

studied (New CRELs, Old CRELs and large farmers). These included gender,

educational level, number of years involved in milk production and general farm

management information. Results indicated that 96.3%, 92.9% of New and Old CREL

members, respectively and 90% of the large farmers were male (Table 4-1). In addition,

Table 4-2 reveals that 40.7% (n=l 1) of New CREL farmer's highest level of education is









in the category of 4th to 6th grade, while 50% of Old CREL farmers (n=7) is in the 7th to

11th grade range. In contrast, 60% (n=6) of the large farmer group has a college degree.

Independent of educational level, 14.8% (n=4) of New CREL farmers and 14.3% (n=2)

of Old CREL farmers reported they are not literate. Table 4-3 shows that of the three

groups there is a large number of farmers who have been part of the industry for the last

10 to 20 years.

Table 4-1. Distribution of New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farmers by Gender (n=41)
New CREL farmers Old CREL farmers Large farmers
Gender n % n % n %
Male 26 96.3 13 92.9 9 90.0
Female 1 3.7 1 7.1 1 10.0
Total 27 100.0 14 100.0 10 100.0

Table 4-2. Educational Background of New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farmers
Education level n %
New CREL farmers
No formal education 2 7.4
1st 3rd grade 5 18.5
4th 6th grade 11 40.7
7 -11th grade 4 14.8
College Incomplete 2 7.4
College 3 11.2
Total 27 100.0
Old CREL farmers
1st 3rd grade 3 21.4
4th 6th grade 2 14.3
7 -11th grade 7 50.0
College Incomplete 1 7.1
College 1 7.1
Total 14 100.0
Large farmers
7-11th grade 1 10.0
College Incomplete 1 10.0
College 6 60.0
Master's 2 20.0
Total 10 100.0









Table 4-3. Years Involved in Milk Production of New CREL, Old CREL and Large
Farmers.
New CREL farmers Old CREL farmers Large farmers
Length n % n % n %
0-10 years 5 18.5 4 28.6 1 10.0
10-20 years 15 55.6 4 28.6 4 40.0
20-30 years 4 14.8 3 21.4 3 30.0
More than 30 years 3 11.1 3 21.4 2 20.0
Totals 27 100.0 14 100.0 10 100.0

Table 4-4. Distribution of Family Members Working Part or Full-Time on the Farm
Spouse Sons Daughters
n % n % n %
New CREL farms
Work on the farm 10 37.0 10 37.0 2 7.4
Do not work on farm 17 63.0 16 59.3 24 88.9
Not applicable* -- 1 3.7 1 3.7
Totals 27 100.0 27 100.0 27 100.0
Old CREL farms
Work on the farm 8 57.1 8 57.1 3 21.4
Do not work on farm 6 42.9 6 42.9 11 78.6
Not applicable* -- --
Totals 14 100.0 14 100.0 14 100.0
Large farms
Work on the farm 5 50.0 4 40.0
Do not work on farm 5 50.0 6 60.0 10 100.0
Not applicable* -- -- -- 0
Totals 10 100.0 10 100.0 10 100.0
* Farmer did not have sons or daughters.

In relation to work force, 85.2% of New CREL farmers, 64.3% of Old CREL farmers and

70% of large farmers work solely on their farms. In addition 37% of spouses and sons,

and 7.4% of daughters of New CREL farmers work part or full-time on the farm (Table

4-4) while a slightly higher participation of family members was reported in Old CREL

farms.

Table 4-5 indicates that New CREL farms had on average 4.03 permanent workers

(SD=2.38), Old CREL farmers employed 3.42 workers (SD=1.86) and large farmers had









on average 7.5 permanent workers (SD=4.55). Additionally, the education level of farm

workers in New and Old CREL and large farms is presented in Table 4-6.

Table 4-5. Distribution of Permanent Workers per Farm in New CREL, Old CREL and
Large Farms.
Number of New CREL Old CREL Large farms
workers
n % n % n %
0-2 10 37.0 4 28.5 -- --
3-5 8 29.6 9 64.3 4 40.0
6-8 8 29.6 1 7.2 2 20.0
9-12 1 3.8 -- -- 3 30.0
13 or more -- -- -- -- 1 10.0
Totals 109 100.0 48 100.0 70 100.0
M 4.03 3.42 7.5
SD 2.38 1.86 4.5

Table 4-6. Educational Background of Farm Workers
Education level of farm workers n %
New CREL
No formal education 21 19.6
1st 3rd grade 42 39.2
4th 6th grade 38 35.5
7 -11th grade 6 5.7
Total 107 100.0
Old CREL
No formal education 12 25.0
1st 3rd grade 7 14.5
4th 6th grade 28 58.3
7 -11th grade 1 2.2
Total 48 100.0
Large farm
No formal education 9 12.9
1st 3rd grade 33 47.1
4th 6th grade 28 40.0
Total 70 100.0

Farm Characteristics

Farm characteristics of New CREL, Old CREL and large farms are presented in

Table 4-7. All large farms (n=10) have access to tap water, electricity and have adequate

facilities (milking parlor). On the other hand, 25.9% of New CREL farms do not have









any type of facilities to milk cows and 37% do not have access to tap water. In contrast,

92.9% of Old CREL farms have access to tap water and approximately 85.8% of farms

have at least a corral with roof and concrete floors to use for milking cows. The number

of farms operating under dual-purpose systems is high, 96.3% (n=26) of new CREL and

78.6% (n=l 1) of Old CREL, whereas it was only 20% (n=2) of large farms.

Table 4-7. Characteristics of New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farms
Characteristic New CREL Old CREL Large farms
n % n % n %
Access to tap water 17 63.0 13 92.9 10 100.0
Access to electrical 7 25.9 7 50.0 10 100.0
power
Road access 5 miles 23 85.2 14 100.0 6 60.0
or less
Milking facilities
Open field 7 25.9 0 0.0 0 0.0
Corral with roof 6 22.2 2 14.3 0 0.0
Corral with roof
and concrete floor 14 51.9 6 42.9 0 0.0
Milking parlor 0 0.0 6 42.9 10 100.0
Totals 27 100.0 14 100.0 10 100.0

Table 4-8. Average Pasture Area (acres) on New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farms
Pasture
Group Acres SD
New CREL 130.0 145.6
Old CREL 145.0 188.0
Large farmers 252.6 226.1

On average, pasture area is very similar between New and Old CREL farms (Table

4-8) as well as the number of cows in milk for the peak season of New and Old CREL

farms is 29.3 and 32.2, respectively. However, milk production among Old CREL farms

is 42% and 35.9% higher on average for the peak and low season respectively than in

New CREL farms (Table 4-9).









Table 4-9. Average Daily Milk Production and Number of Cows in Milk per Farm
Group Daily Milk Production Cows in Milk
Peak Low Peak Low
n (lb) n (lb) n cows n cows
New CREL 26 381.9 26 261.3 26 29.3 26 23.5
SD 39.2 39.6 2.6 2.6
Old CREL 14 659.8 14 407.9 14 32.2 14 24.2
SD 156.0 114.6 5.9 4.6
Large farms 9 2633.8 9 2537.2 9 94.2 9 90.6
SD 1992.1 1936.6 59.1 58.6

Table 4-10. Composition of Breeds Among New CREL, Old CREL and Large Farms


Breeds
New CREL
Brown Swiss x Brahman
Holstein x Brahman
Brown Swiss
Gyr x Brahman
Total
Old CREL
Holstein x Brahman
Holstein
Brown Swiss x Brahman
Brown Swiss
Jersey
Gyr x Brahman
Total
Large farm
Holstein
Holstein x Brahman
Brown Swiss x Holstein
Brown Swiss
Brown Swiss x Brahman
Jersey
Other
Total


22 52.4
18 42.8
1 2.4
1 2.4
42 100.0


41.4
20.7
17.2
13.9
3.4
3.4
100.0


4 20.0
4 20.0
4 20.0
3 15.0
2 10.0
2 10.0
1 5.0
20 100.0


In addition, Table 4-9 indicates that milk production as well as the number of cows

in milk within large farms changes decreases slightly from one season to the other. The

composition of the breeds for each group is presented in Table 4-10. The crosses

Holstein x Brahman and Brown Swiss x Brahman are the most prevalent in New and Old









CREL farms. Although the Holstein x Brahman is also common in large farms there is

also preference for Brown Swiss x Holstein and Holstein animals.

Table 4-11. Frequency and Percentage of Adoption of Management Practices in New
CREL, Old CREL and Large Farms
Area Practice Chi- New CREL Old CREL Large farms
square
n % n % n %
Pasture Use of 5.39* 18 66.6 12 85.7 10 100.0
Management improved
grass varieties
Fertilization 6.43* 16 59.3 11 78.5 10 100.0
Feeding and Feed 7.65 16 59.3 12 85.7 10 100.0
Nutrition concentrate
Feed cows by 14.5* 8 29.6 7 50.0 10 100.0
production
level
Reproductive Artificial 9.41** 1 3.7 2 14.3 6 60.0
Management Insemination
Check heat 9.44* 7 25.9 4 28.6 8 80.0
Check for 24.5*** 4 14.8 3 21.4 10 100.0
pregnancy
Management Keep records 6.43* 16 60.3 11 78.6 10 100.0
Record type: Production 9 33.3 10 71.4 10 100.0
Health 0 0.0 2 14.3 8 80.0
Reproduction 13 48.1 10 71.4 10 100.0
Accounting 8 29.6 6 42.9 8 80.0
Inventory 3 11.1 0 0.0 5 50.0
* Significant .05
** Significant .01
*** Significant .001

Adoption of management practices known to increase milk production is lowest

in New CREL farms followed by Old CREL farms (Table 4-11). In contrast, all large

farms had implemented most of the management practices outlined within the structured

interview guides.

Objective 1

The first research objective was to determine the perceptions of each group of

farmers about extension services. To determine farmers perceptions it was first necessary









to determine the availability of extension services. The findings revealed that only 18.5%

of New CREL farmers, 42.9% of Old CREL farmers and 60% of large farmers had

participated in extension programs offered by DICTA. Farmers explained that DICTA

had not offered programs on a permanent basis in the regions covered by our study in a

long period of time. Qualitative data showed that 60% of large farmers believe DICTA is

not capable of offering quality programs to them in the near future. In addition, a

significant number of New CREL farmers reported negative experiences with DICTA

mainly due to inexperience of field agents and lack of follow-up on programs. Despite

these facts, a large percentage of farmers in the three groups reported they had

participated in extension programs in the past sponsored either by public or private

organizations (Table 4-12).

Table 4-12. Frequency and Percentage of Farmers Who Have Participated in Public
and/or Private Extension Programs
Farmer Group n %
New CREL farmers 26 96.3
Old CREL farmers 12 85.7
Large Farmers 10 100.0

New CREL, Old CREL and large farmers described extension services (either

private or public) as short-term and sporadic. Farmers stated that extension programs

have usually concentrated on specific areas i.e. pasture management, vaccination

programs or artificial insemination. According to farmers, extension has not taken a

holistic approach and so it has been hard to improve farm productivity if other aspects of

milk production are left untouched. However, the major critique of farmers to extension

programs was that they do not conduct follow-up activities. Consequently, only a small

percentage of farmers in the three groups of farmers seek extension agents for

information and advice (Table 4-13).









Table 4-13. Top Three Sources of Information used by New CREL, Old CREL and
Large farmers.
Source of New CREL Old CREL Large Farmers
information Farmers farmers
n % n % n %
Veterinarian 7 19.4 7 26.9 7 33.0
Salesmen 6 16.7 4 15.4 3 14.3
Consultant 1 2.8 -- 2 9.5
Other farmers 10 27.8 10 38.5 3 14.3
Extension agent 3 8.3 3 11.5 2 9.5
Rely on own 9 25.0 2 7.7 1 4.8
experience
Magazines and 3 14.3
Books
Totals 36 100.0 26 100.0 21 100.0

Most New CREL (27.8%) and Old CREL (38.5%) farmers rely on other farmers for

information and advice while 25% of New CREL farmers rely solely on their own

experiences. Large farmers seek veterinarians (33%), salesmen (14.3%), other farmers

(14.3%) and books and magazines from other countries (14.3%) for information and

advice. In addition, farmers indicated that despite the lack of permanent extension

services, sporadically there are educational programs and training offered by input

suppliers and agricultural universities sponsored by farmer associations in which they

receive new information.

According to farmers, a large number of input suppliers such as concentrate and

veterinary supply companies and farmer associations offer support services. In addition,

there are short-term extension programs such as the ones conducted by NGOs such as

Land O'Lakes and Zamorano, Panamerican School of Agriculture. INFOP, the largest

nonformal education provider in the country had recently conducted training for some of

the CRELs in the Atlantida Region. Consulting companies from other countries are

slowly starting to emerge in the areas where the study was conducted; however, few









farmers mentioned having received information about the services they offer. Otherwise,

it was reported that there are only three well-known veterinarians in the Atlantida, Yoro

and Aguan Valley Regions.

Table 4-16, shows that 50% of Old CREL and large farmers consider that support

services in general are doing an excellent job, and only 14.3% and 20% respectively

believe support services are bad. In addition, 51.5% of New CREL farmers, 56.3% of

Old CREL farmers and 10% of large farmers believe they do not need additional services

(Table 4-15). According to researcher observations and interviews with input suppliers,

most of the services identified by farmers in Table 4-15 are either not offered or were

very weak. As it can be inferred from Table 4-14 mostly farmers, sons and workers

attend educational programs; female participation is minimal. Farmers from the three

groups cited lack of time, bad timing for programs and no interest in the topic as the top

reasons for not attending programs.

Table 4-14. Farmers Perceptions of the Quality of Support Services
Group Rating n %
New CREL farmers
Excellent 8 29.6
Good 17 63.0
Bad 1 3.7
No experiences 1 3.7
Total 27 100.0
Old CREL farmers
Excellent 7 50.0
Good 3 21.4
Bad 2 14.3
No experiences 2 14.3
Total 14 100.0
Large farmers
Excellent 5 50.0
Good 3 30.0
Bad 2 20.0
No experiences 0 0.0
Total 10 100.0









Content analysis of qualitative data showed that New and Old CREL farmers

attend most educational opportunities available while large farmers were more selective

of the programs they decide to attend. In this regard, the researcher observed that Old

CREL farmers seek educational programs more actively than New CREL farmers.

Table 4-15. Additional Support Services Needed According to Farmers
Number of times
identified
Needs by group n %
New CREL farmers
Technical assistance on permanent basis 10 30.3
Consulting services 2 6.1
Artificial insemination 2 6.1
Laboratory for feed and pasture analysis 1 3.0
Research 1 3.0
No additional services needed 17 51.5
Total 33 100.0
Old CREL farmers
Technical assistance on a permanent basis 7 43.9
No additional services needed 9 56.1
Total 16 100.0
Large Farmers
Consulting services 3 30.0
Technical assistance on a permanent basis 3 30.0
Adaptive on farm research 2 20.0
Laboratory for feed and pasture analysis 1 10.0
No additional services needed 1 10.0
Total 10 100.0

Old CREL farmers select representatives to attend educational programs especially

when these are offered in other cities and later share the findings with the rest of the

members in the CREL. Old CREL farmers also stated they try to attract experts,

extension programs and other individuals who can bring educational programs to the

CREL. In all Old CRELs except one, farmers expressed the value of extension. In this

sense, New CRELs were less organized than Old CRELs most likely due to the short time









that had passed since they started operating and the limited attention and support services

they had received at the time of our study.

Table 4-16. Distribution of the Frequency and Percentage of Attendees to Extension
Programs
Farmer group


New CREL Old CREL Large Farms
n % n % n %
Farmer alone 13 39.4 10 66.7 5 45.5
Spouse 4 12.1 0 0.0 0 0.00
Son 8 24.2 3 20.0 3 27.3
Workers 8 24.3 2 13.4 3 27.3
Totals 33 100.0 15 100.0 11 100.0

An important part of the human capital in rural areas is farm workers. As indicated

in Table 4-15 farm workers are exposed to less training than farmers despite that fact that

they do a large part of the work in the farm. Only 44% of New CREL farmers, 7.1% of

Old CREL farmers and 30% of large farmers stated they send their workers to the few

training programs available. In this regard, the reasons cited for lack of assistance

include lack of time and bad scheduling of programs. In addition, 26.3%, 33.3% and

14.3% of New CREL, Old CREL and large farmers respectively find the level and/or

delivery used in such programs inadequate for the educational level of most workers, and

therefore farmers feel it is not a good use of time to send workers to training programs.

Moreover contradictory reasons for not sending farm workers to programs include the

fact that 10.5% of New CREL farmers and 13.3% of Old CREL farmers believe that

increasing knowledge and skills of farm workers leads to: workers knowing more than

the farmer and workers moving to another farm where they get paid better salaries. It can

be concluded that not all farmers see training for farm workers as a positive event. On









the other hand, an external factor such as the high turnover rate of farm employees cited

by large farmers is another important factor that hinders training.

Table 4-17. Percentage of Farms That Send Farm Workers to Training Programs and
Reasons for the Lack of Attendance at Programs in New CREL, Old CREL
and Large Farms
Group Farms Reasons for lack of attendance
n % %
New CREL 12 44.4 Lack of time 31.6
Inadequate training 26.3
Bad schedules 15.8
Not needed 10.5
Lack of transportation 5.3
Other 10.5
Total 100.0
Old CREL 1 7.1 Lack of time 46.7
Inadequate training 33.3
Workers leave after training 13.3
Other 6.7
Total 100.0
Large Farms 3 30.0 Bad schedules 28.6
Lack of time 14.3
Workers leave after training 14.3
Inadequate training 14.3
High turnover rate 14.3
Other 14.3
Total 100.0

Despite the apparent satisfaction of farmers with current services provided, Table

4-14 shows that 81.5% (n=22) and 92.9% (n=13) of New CREL farmers and Old CREL

farmers expressed that they are willing to consider paying for technical assistance as a

CREL. Accordingly, 90% (n=9) of large farmers also stated they would consider paying

for consulting or technical assistance services that would lead to significant increases in

productivity.

Objective 2

Objective 2 of the study was to determine the educational delivery methods used

in extension programs offered to dairy farmers. The interviews with input suppliers,









extension agents from INFOP, farmer associations and farmers were used to answer this

objective.

Table 4-18. Educational Delivery Methods Used by Providers
Method Input New CREL Old CREL Large farmers
suppliers and farmers farmers (n=10)
farmer (n=27) (n=14)
associations
(n=9)
N % n % n % n %
Meetings 9 100.0 22 81.4 11 78.5 10 100.0
Method 7 77.7 15 55.5 10 71.4 7 70.0
demonstrations
Field days 9 100.0 20 74.0 9 64.2 10 100.0
Farm visits 5 50.0 12 44.4 7 50.0 6 60.0
1 & 2 day seminars 5 66.6 10 37.0 6 42.8 8 80.0
Written media 6 50.0 10 37.0 10 71.4 6 60.0
(pamphlets, brochures,
magazines)
Mass media 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
One-on-one contact 4 66.6 9 33.3 8 57.1 10 100.0

Table 4-18 shows that method demonstrations, meetings and field days are the

most commonly used delivery methods among the three groups of farmers. To a lesser

extent, input suppliers offer 1 or 2 day seminars and extension agents mostly conduct

group visits to farms. In addition, model farms had been used in the past to demonstrate

technologies. Limited availability of written media such as pamphlets, booklets and

magazines was reported. In addition, the usage of mass media providing information

regarding milk production was not reported. Finally, one-on-one contacts from service

providers and extension programs were more common with large farmers (100%) than

with New CREL (33.3%) and Old CREL (57.1%) farmers according to providers.

Objective 3

This objective was to determine preferred educational delivery methods of dairy

farmers. The results for objective 3 are shown in Table 4-19.









Table 4-19. Farmers Preferences Regarding Educational Delivery Methods
New CREL Old CREL Large farmers
Method farmers farmers (n= 10)
(n=27) (n=14)
N % n % n %
Hands-on, experiential only n 55.0 6 42.9 2 20.0
Mix of hands-on and 7 26.0 8 57.1 8 80.0
theoretical training
Didn't know 5 19.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Meetings 22 81.4 11 78.5 10 100.0
Method demonstrations 15 55.5 10 71.4 7 70.0
Field days 20 74.0 9 64.2 10 100.0
Farm visits 12 44.4 7 50.0 6 60.0
1 & 2 day seminars 10 37.0 6 42.8 8 80.0
Written media (pamphlets, 10 37.0 10 71.4 6 60.0
brochures, magazines)
Mass media 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
One-on-one contact 9 33.3 8 57.1 10 100.0

Farmer preferences were as follows: 55% (n=15) of New CREL farmers preferred

delivery methods that used applicable, hands-on and experiential learning. In contrast

57.1% (n=8) of Old CREL farmers, and 80% (n=8) of large farmers believed a mix of

practical and theoretical methods would be more adequate for programs targeted for dairy

farmers. In addition, the use of reinforcement methods such as brochures, booklets and

pamphlets in educational programs was mentioned by a large number of farmers. The

most popular hands-on delivery methods are farm visits, field days and process

demonstrations. In addition, short seminars (1 to 2 hours in length) are the most accepted

method for delivery of theoretical content. Farmers noted that regardless of the method,

presenters should provide some form of reinforcement method of the content covered

during the program, and they should speak slowly and allot enough time for a question

and answer section. Most New and Old CREL farmers expressed these are extremely

important factors for them.









Objective 4

This objective in our study is to determine felt and ascribed needs of farmers.

Interviews with farmers, farmer association's representatives and input suppliers were

used to answer this objective.

Felt Needs

A technical assistance program in general terms was seen by most New CREL

farmers as a very important service they needed; although 40% (n=l 1) of the farmers in

this group were not able to prioritize their educational needs. On the other hand, 70%

(n=10) of Old CREL farmers expressed not only the need for technical assistance

programs but were specific about their educational needs. Still a total of 28% (n=4)

farmers in this group were not able to determine educational needs. The qualitative data

analysis revealed that in contrast to New CREL farmers, Old CREL farmers expressed

their educational needs from a group perspective rather than an individualistic

perspective. Furthermore, Old CREL farmers stated they needed to strengthen CRELs.

Old CREL Farmers considered that marketing options could contribute to this goal.

Nonetheless, in this sense Old CREL farmers ignored ways extension or technical

assistance programs could contribute to this objective. Large farmers were more explicit

and detailed about the subject matter areas that should be covered by educational

programs as well as for their needs and those of dairy farmers in general. Large farmers

believe they need services provided by qualified individuals on a permanent basis.

Nonetheless they see a lack of trained individuals to conduct such services in the country,

especially field agents. Large farmers complained that field agents are usually very

young with limited field experience and expertise, and low salaries.









Furthermore, this group offered detailed explanations on the importance and need

of establishing not only extension services for farmers but also of starting training

schools or programs targeted for farm workers and herdsmen. In this regard, 30% of

large farmers expressed the need to educate farm owners about the importance of

developing and maintaining good relations with farm employees. Large farmers cited

that farm workers are usually under paid, receive no incentives and have few benefits as

farm workers. Other major issues included the need of educational programs that teach

how to manage finances and credits wisely. According to farmer associations and large

farmers themselves, a high percentage of dairy farmers are high in debt as a result of bad

management of loans acquired in the past. Finally all large farmers expressed the need

for youth programs. They stated that there is lack of pride and incentives for farmer's

children of continuing in the industry and consequently of future leaders.

Table 4-20 lists subject matter areas that should be targeted by extension programs

according to farmers. The ranking identified: pasture management, feeding and nutrition

and improving milk quality as the top three priorities. This finding is not surprising since

feeding and nutrition costs are the highest portion of the expenses in dairy farms in

Honduras (Merino & Avila, 2000). The lack of information in regards to feeding

programs for cattle added to extreme environmental conditions make the implementation

of feeding programs a real challenge for most farmers in Honduras. Additionally, milk

quality has become a major issue especially for New and Old CREL farmers who place

milk into a single storage and cooling tank unit.









Table 4-20. Ranking of Training Priorities of New, Old and Large Farmers
Technical Areas n %
New CREL farmers
1. Feeding and nutrition 9 14.8
1. Improving milk quality 9 14.8
2. Pasture management 7 11.5
3. Farm management 6 9.8
4. Animal Reproduction & Artificial Insemination 4 6.6
4. Marketing 4 6.6
5. Improving genetics 3 4.9
6. Milking procedures 2 3.3
6. Vaccination and deworming 2 3.3
7. Record keeping 1 1.6
7. Forage conservation 1 1.6
7. Forming strategic alliances 1 1.6
7. Use of electrical fences 1 1.6
Considered all important 11 18.0
Total 61 100.0
Old CREL farmers
1. Pasture management 5 16.7
2. Feeding and nutrition 4 13.3
2. Improving milk quality 4 13.3
3. Farm management 3 10.0
4. Forage Conservation 2 6.7
4. Raising replacement heifers 2 6.7
5. Reproduction and A.I. 1 3.3
5. Improving genetics 1 3.3
5. Milking procedures
5. Record keeping 1 3.3
5. Animal health 1 3.3
5. Use of electric fencing 1 3.3
Considered all important 4 13.3
Total 30 100.0
Large farmers
1. Pasture management 5 21.7
2. Feeding and nutrition 3 13.0
2. Improving milk quality 3 13.0
3. Animal reproduction and A.I. 2 8.7
3. Farm management 2 8.7
3. Use of electrical fencing 2 8.7
3. Record keeping 2 8.7
4. Milking procedures 1 4.3
4. Animal Health 1 4.3
Considered all important 2 8.7
Total 23 100.0