Evaluation was effected through a participative-diagnosis &nbsp;tool which integrates several techniques and the organ- izational work for agro producer training. Three participative exercises, i.e., brainstorming, questions, and the nine- square or the General Electric matrix, were performed. Deficiencies in the training process and how to solve them, the need of team work to diagnose demands, problems, program design, and program application were determined. Besides, the current situation of the School of Training for Agricultural Executives, affiliated to the Ministry of Ag- riculture division in Camagüey, was assessed, for capital and resource investment, and for introduction of new agro- products and services to the market

Curbelo Rodríguez, Lino M.

Guevara  Viera, Guillermo E.

Guevara Viera, Raúl V.

Nápoles Gutiérre, Noel z

Soto Senra, Servando A.

English

Portal de Revistas - Universidad de Camagüey

Rev. prod. anim., 25 (1): 2013 I S S N  2 2 2 4 - 7 9 2 0  Efficiency of Agricultural Upgrading as a Component of the Farming Extension System Raúl V. Guevara Viera*, Noel Nápoles Gutiérrez**, Lino M. Curbelo Rodríguez*, Guillermo E. Guevara Viera* and Servando A. Soto Senra* * Center for Animal Production Development Studies (CEDEPA), Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Camagüey, Cuba. ** Training School of the Ministry of Agriculture, Camagüey, Cuba. raul.guevara@reduc.edu.cu ABSTRACT Evaluation was effected through a participative-diagnosis tool which integrates several techniques and the organ-izational work for agro producer training. Three participative exercises, i.e., brainstorming, questions, and the nine-square or the General Electric matrix, were performed. Deficiencies in the training process and how to solve them, the need of team work to diagnose demands, problems, program design, and program application were determined. Besides, the current situation of the School of Training for Agricultural Executives, affiliated to the Ministry of Ag-riculture division in Camagüey, was assessed, for capital and resource investment, and for introduction of new agro-products and services to the market. Key Words: agricultural training, qualification, analysis matrix  INTRODUCTION The broad economic, political and social changes of today are linked to increase in com-petitiveness. The need for innovation, the fast technological development, globalization and new demands for workforce, have compelled organiza-tions to redesign qualified development of human resources from a different perspective, in order to enhance performance (Suárez, 2006; Guevara et al., 2010). The Training and Upgrading School is another element of farming extension introduced by the Ministry of Agriculture in Cuba. Training the workforce and extending the agricultural produc-tion (field days, workshops, seminars, lectures, training, academic stays, self-study and self-training, counsellorships and scientific exchanges, are common events at the school (Valdés and López, 2005; Guevara et al., 2010). In this sense, the use of new organizational as-sessing techniques is compulsory, meaning within the lapse of a year, or when conditions are ripe, self-analysis can be carried out by the institution, allowing staff to assess performance in livestock production in terms of efficiency and efficacy, and the factors that might affect yielding within the rural setting. The aim of this paper is to assess the efficiency of organizational work with agricultural producers at the Agriculture Training and Upgrading School in Camaguey, using a diagnostic-participative tool, in the framework of the provincial farming extension. MATERIALS AND METHODS The research was conducted at the Mario Herrero Toscano Agriculture Training and Up-grading School of the Ministry of Agriculture. The institution encompasses 42.77 ha (6.62 ha al-lotted to varied crops; 33.65, to livestock; and 2.5, to facilities, including classrooms for veterinary, agronomy, economics, irrigation and machinery, and a center for information management). The workforce is composed of 17 professionals, 4 graduate technicians and 25 with secondary level. The area for practices has 24 varieties of native and enhanced pasture; 4 varieties of sugar cane, arborescent and crawling legumes; 11 clones of sweet potato; and 6 varieties of plantain and ba-nana. The area also includes seven units for teach-ing-productive assignments: avian, swine, ovine, aquaculture, mini-cowsheds, varied crops, ma-chinery, and draft animal areas. Analysis of effi-cacy and efficiency of the school Three continuous exercises were applied to conduct the study. Brainstorming and list deduc-tion were the first techniques (Carnota, 1991) ap-plied to the ten professors of the staff, the current principal and a former principals, and the secre-Efficiency of Agricultural Upgrading as a Component of the Farming Extension System Rev. prod. anim., 25 (1): 2013 tary. The main shortcomings affecting training and potentialities were presented. Then a ten-question survey was carried out. Finally, the General Electric (GE) Matrix, de-scribed by Kotler (1992) for the analysis of schools as a product or as an opportunity for busi-ness, was used. Assessments of business strength and market appeal were made, with a 0-3 range. The values collected from the application of the matrix were included. • Strong zone: quadrants I, II, IV. Business Strategic Unit (UEN), area for growth/investment. • Mid zone: quadrants: III, V, VII. Area with mean appeal and selective benefit (choose profit) • Weak zone: quadrants VII, VIII, IX. Area for less attractive business, no investment (harvest/uninvest). Criteria from 39 farmers of different local or-ganizations, who received training and services from the school in the last five-year period, were evaluated, as a validation exercise for the tech-nique used. Consequently, a survey was applied with the following descriptors: positive, negative, and indifferent or without criteria. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Brainstorming was used to determine the fol-lowing shortcomings, determining aspects in the flaws found in the agricultural information de-vices in the Latin-American continent (Guevara et al., 2006 and Altieri, 2010): • Poor diagnostic and knowledge of train-ing demands. • Transportation problems • No assessment of training efficiency.   • No record of impact assessment. • No room and board for students at the in-stitution.   • Need to improve program execution. Difficulties were observed in the facilities for rural extension in terms of assistance for agricul-tural policy designing. Agricultural schools have trouble setting up and developing efficacy and ef-ficiency assessment actions of extension-training programs, which hinders the solution of problems when creating human resources for agriculture, and further qualifying (Guevara et al., 2006 and Altieri, 2010). Limitations in training are known to be linked to unstable transportation conditions and the lack of room and board at the school for non-local stu-dents (EMATER-Río, 1989; Díaz, 2008). The potentialities of the school rely on the prob-able use of information, though it is not com-pletely built: • There are problems from which to create training programs. • Programs designed by the school. • Project management. • Working association with enterprises and other organizations. • Training programs reviewed by the school. • Experienced staff. • Technical qualification of producers. • Board of Directors committed to school development. • Efficient line of command. These factors have allowed the school to work properly for over 30 years, and develop its work in the overall productive scenario, playing an im-portant formative role. It is reported in the litera-ture as the creation of capacities for action, and it is the first link for business success in terms of training-development of any farmer assistance or-ganization (Díaz, 2008 and GIPAC, 2010). Within the training process different authors agree that the needs for training are the source for design formative and developing programs (Suárez, 2003). Factors of the Central Training System of MINAGRI (Cuban Ministry of Agriculture), which mold the formation needs of human re-sources:  • Closer approach to the ground level. • Little training needs. • Absence of enterprise-school debate. • Appropriate training system. • Increased economic resources. • Active system pointing to the ground level. • MINAGRI-oriented system • Absence of diagnostic made by the train-ing management. Suárez (2006) reports that there are four sources of training needs: 1. Enterprise problems; 2. Shift-ing projects; 3. trade evolution; and 4. Profes-sional evolution. Solé and Mirabet (1997), out-R. Guevara, N. Nápoles, L. Curbelo, G. Guevara and S. Soto Rev. prod. anim., 25 (1): 2013 lined their experiences in Cuban livestock enter-prises, problems of the enterprises and shifting projects. Participation in the process of training program design: • The programs are developed from general and specific objectives. • A previously designed program is the base for training. • Participation in the design is little or none. • All staff involved in the problem must be included in the design. • The design is not systematic; courses of tools and management are given. • Professors participate in the design. • The programs designed in the institution have defined objectives.  • Participation in the design is active, ac-cording to the needs, which is later ap-proved by MINAGRI. • For quite a long time, several programs have been in place. Solé and Mirabet (1997) and Lay, Suárez and Zamora (2005) point out that in designing training program contents, facilities, duration, human and material resources, selection of participants and assistance, the level of achievement of the results after application, must be considered; as well as training methodologies with different techniques and devices, and publication of the training plan. Monitoring and assessing have proven to be closely tied (Lay, Suárez y Zamora, 2005). As the former is centered on verifying how the process advances, the latter takes that information and is-sues judgments. The General Electric (GE) Ma-trix is a technique used by Suárez (1998), who analyzes every business based on two factors: market appeal and position (or competitive strength). Table 1 shows the strength factor in business, with a value of 2.27; and in table 2 market appeal reached 1.96; so training of 2.11 (see figure) is strong, if strong is over or equal to 2.10; the mean is between 1.21 and 2.09; and weak is considered below or equal to 1.20. GE Matrix (see figure) shows that training is lo-cated in square IV; hence, its position and leader-ship must be protected. Investments should be made in resources, action strategies and time to keep products and make them grow strong, as well as the processes. Additionally, the mean and weak points should be reinforced, according to Kotler (1992), hoping for a joint effort in favor of the institution by MINAGRI, the Central Gov-ernment bodies, the National Association of Small Farmers, the National Institute of Veterinary Medicine, and several NGOs, and project man-agement for development. It is also a key step to create awareness in every organization about the necessary collaboration at all levels and areas in terms of training, as all enterprise and businesses activities will require them sooner or later (Suárez, 1998; Ashby et al., 2000; Guevara et al., 2006). Favorable criteria (81-100 % of producers) on the school training actions in terms of programs, urgent needs, professional level and scenarios, re-garding the first four indicators (table 3). It is im-portant, because they are vital components in the training process, whose core is made of classical components of supply and demand: need-program-professor-preparation (Rolling, 1999; Guevara et al., 2010; SEA, 2011). An outstanding element in this process is the systemic conception of teaching with emphasis on farming, process and knowledge technologies, which was strengthened by the staff in a recent period of analysis, because they are more effec-tive than transferring approaches, and to keep up with regional agro ecological training groups in the continent (Altieri, 2010; Funes-Monzote, 2010; Guevara et al., 2011). The demonstrative and audiovisual aids for teaching and service providing have evolved fa-vorably. Though improvements are still needed, some equipment for teaching have been received through grants from NGOs (CEDEPA, 2010). Economic analysis techniques are still deficient; therefore, the school collaborates with the Univer-sity of Camaguey and MINAGRI. At the Univer-sity, there are the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and the Faculty of Economic and Business Sci-ences (Guevara et al., 2011). Poor positive scoring of rural extension meth-ods is the result of inadequate approaches in this discipline. Terminological problems with the definition of extension is one example (SEA, 2011; Guevara et al., 2010). Most of the surveyed individuals (82 %) con-sidered that the techniques used in the assessing Efficiency of Agricultural Upgrading as a Component of the Farming Extension System Rev. prod. anim., 25 (1): 2013 system fit the objectives, contents and scopes of the courses, which corroborates the opinions is-sued by national and foreign organizations in process evaluation (SEA, 2011; Guevara et al., 2010). CONCLUSIONS In order to implement training courses in Cuban farming enterprises, business diagnostics and the training process must be the starting points to identify the training needs, plan the process, fol-low ups and assessments. REFERENCES ALTIERI, M. A. (2010). ¿Por qué estudiar la agricultura tradicional? Bases históricas y técnicas. Conferencia de posgrado, diciembre. ASHBY, JACQUELINE; BRAUN, ANN; GARCÍA, T.; GUERRERO, M.; HERNÁNDEZ, I.; QUIRÓS, C. y ROA, J. (2000). Invirtiendo en los agricultores como experimentadores. Cali, Colombia: CIAT. CARNOTA, E. (1991). Cuando el tiempo no alcanza. La Habana, Cuba: Ed. Ciencias Sociales. CEDEPA (2010). Resumen del trabajo del Centro de Estudios para el Desarrollo de la Producción Animal. Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad de Camagüey. DÍAZ, J. (2008). Contribución al desarrollo organizacional para la transferencia de tecnología en la ganadería bovina. EMATER-RIO (1989). Acompañamiento técnico-económico de Fazendas leiteras. Documento de campo. Empresa de Asistencia Técnica y Extensión Rural de Río de Janeiro, Brasil. FUNES-MONZOTE, F. (2010). Results on Integrated Crop-Livestock-Forestry Systems with Agrecological Bases for Development of the Cuban Agriculture, 13th IFOAM, Basel, Switzerland. GIPAC (2010). Documento de diagnóstico a campo del trabajo del grupo integral del trabajo para la ganadería en Camagüey. Cuba: CEDEPA, Estación Experimental de Pastos y Forrajes, Instituto de Ciencia Animal. GUEVARA, R. V.; GUEVARA, G. V.; CURBELO RODRÍGUEZ, L.; ESTÉVEZ ALFAYETE, J. A.; PEDRAZA OLIVERA, R.; BARRETO TORELLA, Sara et al. (2006). Impacto del Centro de Estudios para el Desarrollo de la Producción Animal (CEDEPA) en la ganaderia del territorio. 1. Programa de formación en extensión rural. Rev. Prod. Animal. GUEVARA, R. V.; GUEVARA, G.; MARCOFF, C.; CURBELO RODRÍGUEZ, L.; ESTÉVEZ, J. A.; PEDRAZA, R.; GÁLVEZ, M. y MARTÍNEZ, S. (2006). Contribución del enfoque de extensión en proyectos de desarrollo, al mejoramiento de la eficiencia productiva de cooperativas ganaderas. Rev. prod. anim., 18 (2), 111-115. GUEVARA, R. V.; CURBELO RODRÍGUEZ, L.; LOYOLA ORIYES, C.; GUEVARA VIERA, G.; BERTOT VALDÉS, J.; SENRA PÉREZ, A. F.; García, R. y Del RISCO GARCÉS, SONIA (2010). Aproximación al estudio de los factores que pueden afectar la eficiencia bioeconómica y ambiental en sistema estacionales de producción de leche que se desarrollan en Cuba. (Artículo reseña). Rev. Prod. Animal, 22 (1). GUEVARA, R.; GUEVARA, G.; SOTO, S.; CURBELO, L. y PEDRAZA, R. (2011). Manual de extensión rural para curso de la Maestría en Producción Animal Sostenible. CEDEPA. KOTLER, P. (1992). Dirección de Marketing. Análisis, planificación, gestión y control (7ma ed.). México. DF: Prentice Hall. LAY MARÍA, T.; SUÁREZ, J. y ZAMORA, M. (2005). Modelo para gestionar la capacitación de directivos y reservas en la empresa ganadera cubana. I. Diagnóstico empresarial y del proceso de capacitación. Pastos y Forrajes, 28 (3), 253-264. ROLLING, N. (1999). Training Course in Rural Extension, International Agriculture Center. Univ. of Wageningen, Netherlands. SEA (2011). Sistema de Extensión Agraria en Cuba. MINAGRI. SOLÉ, F. y MIRABET, MARÍA (1997). Guía para la formación en la empresa. Madrid: Civitas. SUÁREZ, J. (2003). El papel clave de la tecnología y la innovación en la ganadería cubana y su efecto en el desarrollo del sector. Ponencia presentada en la III Convención Internacional de Educación Superior, 4 al 8 febrero, La Habana, Cuba. SUÁREZ, J. (2006). Comportamiento innovador en empresas ganaderas de la región central de Cuba. Pastos y Forrajes (en edición). SUÁREZ, J. (1998). La utilización de la Matriz GE en la evalución de productos científicos: un caso de transferencia de la industria al sector de la ciencia. Pastos y Forrajes, 21, 179. VALDÉZ, G. y LÓPEZ, R. (2005). Transferencia de tecnología: un reto de la ACPA para contribuir a la excelencia productiva. III Encuentro Regional de Extensionismo y Transferencia de Tecnologías, La Habana, Cuba.  Received: 9-15-2012  Accepted: 10-20-2012    Table 1. Analysis of school in terms of workforce and business strength No Business strength Pe(j) Strong Mean Weak Very weak Pi 1 Competence with counterparts and level of differentiation. 0.10 2.2    0.22 2 Quality of the school as a functional and technological product. 0.10 2.7    0.27 3 Quality of the school as environmental advocate. 0.06 2.5    0.15 4 Level of technological innovation. 0.05  2.0   0.10 5 Vulnerability of the school compared to others. 0.06  1.8   0.11 6 Possibility for after-sales service and product enhancement. 0.05  2.0   0.10 7 Knowledge and need for the market 0.10  1.7   0.17 8 School image 0.06 2.6    0.16 9 Cost of school operations 0.06 2.2    0.13 10 Novelty as a school product 0.05 2.1    0.10 11 Social and economic impact of school 0.10 2.3    0.23 12 School promotion 0.05 2.6    0.13 13 Qualified extension personnel of the school 0.16 2.5    0.40 14 Overall 1.00     2.27   Table 2. Analysis of the school in terms of market appeal. No Market appeal Pe(j) Strong Mean Weak Very weak Pi 1 Dynamics of the school´s product to-ward the internal market. 0.25 2.4    0.60 2 Dynamics of the school´s product to-ward the external market. 0.067  2.0   0.13 3 Competence strength. 0.15 2.3    0.34 4 Barriers to school activity. 0.067  2.0   0.13 5 Distribution of actions 0.15 2.1    0.31 6 Purchasing offers 0.25  1.21   0.30 7 Restrictions to school activity 0.066 2.3    0.15 8 Overall 1.00     1.96                                           Table 3. Criteria from farmers who received training and services at the school in the last five-year period (%)   Criteria from surveyed farmers Favorable criteria Unfavorable criteria Unbiased criteria Null criteria Well-conceived programs 66.0 12.0 10.0 14.0 According to the most urgent needs 81.0 16.0 3.0 - Technical and professional level. 92.0 5.0 - 3.0 Scenario-like classes. 100,0 - - - Systemic and process-based approach 89.0 4.0 - 7.0 Use of demonstrative areas. 67.0 21.0 9.0 3.0 Use of audiovisuals 79.0 14.0 5.0 2.0 Use of economic techniques  55.0 21.0 10.0 14.0 Methods of farming extension. 16.0 - - 84.0 Appropriate assessing techniques. 82.0 3.0 12.0 3.0  

Efficiency of Agricultural Upgrading as a Component of the Farming Extension System

https://revistas.reduc.edu.cu/index.php/rpa/article/download/2518/2277

Efficiency of Agricultural Upgrading as a Component of the Farming Extension System

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Portal de Revistas - Universidad de Camagüey