African Crop Science Conference Proceedings Vol. 8. pp.

2157-2162
Printed in El-Minia, Egypt
ISSN 1023-070X/2007$ 4.00
© 2007, African Crop Science Society

Köy-Mer scheme: Is it a remedy to trigger agricultural extension in Turkiye?

ABDURRAHMAN KARA
Eastern Anatolia Agricultural Research Institute, Dadaskent, 25090 Erzurum, Turkiye
e-mail: kara@datae.gov.tr

Abstract: Support for Village Oriented Agricultural Production Project, or in short Köy-Mer, an agricultural extension
scheme, was commenced on the 1st of January, 2004, as a pilot project in about 1000 villages for three years. The
essence of this scheme is to purchase advisory service from the agricultural and veterinary graduates for in situ training
of the farmers to increase farm income. It is financed by local government allocations and non-governmental
organizations without any central government support. This study aimed to evaluate this scheme to guide and enlighten
the policy makers. Determination of the farmer satisfaction and problems experienced in application were among the
study objectives. The data were collected through four different questionnaires. Interviews were conducted with Köy-
Mer farmers, control farmers, agricultural advisors and agricultural administrators in the study area which covered 69
provinces out of 81 in all over the country. Farmer interviews were conducted with four randomly selected farmers in
each of Köy-Mer and control villages. Villages were selected purposively to represent the whole province. One fifth of
the Köy-Mer villages in each province was selected for the study. Face to face interviews, resulted in 731 Köy-Mer and
729 control farmers, 306 advisor and administrator questionnaires, were conducted with the collaboration of the 25
research institutes. According to the study results, significant and positive changes were determined in farming
practices along with higher farmer satisfaction with the project as well as some problems in the application of the
project (i.e. farmer unwillingness in contributions, low advisor salaries, etc.).
Key words: Agricultural advisor, agricultural extension, technology transfer
scheme was the first step in the direction of privatization
Introduction of agricultural extension service in Turkiye since it was
Agricultural extension is one of the most important tools financed by local government and non-governmental
in agricultural development. It is mainly executed by the organizations without any central government support
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) and (Anonymous, 2005a). In addition, the rule was accepted
its representative directorates in the provinces and that 5% and 10% of the advisor salaries would be paid by
districts, provincial and district directorates of agriculture the farmers in the second and third years of the project
(PDA and DDA). In addition, Sugar Corporation, respectively. (Anonymous, 2004 and 2005b). In another
agricultural faculties of the universities and especially word, in funding the scheme farmer contributions were
Development Foundation of Turkiye (TKV) performs suggested even at lower rates. As long as agricultural
valuable extension work. However, their target people infrastructure problems are solved and farmer incomes
are limited. MARA, organized at district level, is the increase in time it will be possible to finance agricultural
main performer of the extension work. Nevertheless as is advisory service by the farmers, which is very unlikely
the case in many countries, heavy responsibilities of the today. Among the goals of Köy-Mer Scheme come first
PDA and DDAs other than extension limit the speeding up the works to widen the boundaries of the
effectiveness of the extension work. project and increasing the number of advisors by the
Ministry (Anonymous, 2005a). So, in order to achieve
To speed up the agricultural extension work, Training the objectives there was a need to determine and
and Visit (T&V) extension strategy was experienced with investigate the problems and bottlenecks encountered in
some rural development projects and Agricultural the application at country level to be able to guide the
Extension and Applied Research Project conducted in the decisions to be made regarding the future of the project.
past (Kumuk and Crowder, 1996). Despite of some
successful examples the result was not satisfying as well.
Material and Method
In the context of Agricultural Extension another scheme
put into action is the Support for Village Oriented Material
Agricultural Production Project, the Köy-Mer Scheme, a
The data collected with the questionnaires were the study
pilot project initiated on the 1st of January 2004 for three
material. In determination of farmer satisfaction, advisor
years. The essence was to purchase advisory service for
performances and the problems encountered during the
in situ training of the farmers to increase farm income.
application, a-farmers in the villages of advisors (Köy-
Although unit cost of the agricultural extension is Mer farmers), b-farmers in the villages with similar agro-
low, in many countries expenditures for this purpose sum ecological characteristics but out of reach of advisors
up significant amounts due to the huge number of staff (control farmers), c- representatives of PDA and DDAs,
employment. Many countries experiencing fiscal and d-agricultural advisors were considered the target
problems look for alternative structural solutions and people of the study.
they seek to privatize extension service. Köy-Mer
2157
 ABDURRAHMAN KARA

Method methods such as sum, minimum and maximum values,

arithmetic mean and standard deviation were used while
Determination of the sample size: It was adopted to
t-test was employed for group comparisons. In
carry out the study in 70 of 81 provinces and accepted to
comparing the farmer practices before and after the
conduct formal surveys in one fifth of advisor villages in
project paired samples t-test was used while independent
each province. Accordingly, it was agreed to interview
samples t-test was employed to compare Köy-Mer and
with four farmers in each of 187 of 919 advisor villages
control farmer practices.
in 70 provinces all over the country. It was also agreed to
interview with the same number of farmers in the
villages having similar agro-ecological characteristics but Results
out of reach of agricultural advisors. So, it was planned Characteristics of the farmers: Farmer characteristics
to interview with 1496 farmers in total of 374 villages, are important when aim was comparing two groups of
and the PDA director and branch director of agricultural farmers. Roughly education and age of the farmers were
extension in each province along with DDA directors in examined in the study. According to the results, average
the districts of advisors to be interviewed. ages of the Köy-Mer and control farmers were 48,3 and
Collection of the Data: The data were collected with 48,1 while 63 and 70% of them graduated from primary
four different questionnaires, Agricultural Advisor school respectively. Statistical analysis revealed no
questionnaire, Administrator questionnaire targeting the significant differences between two groups of farmers in
directors of PDA and DDAs, Köy-Mer farmer terms of age and education.
questionnaire and Control farmer questionnaire. Formal Farmer Satisfaction: One of the priority objectives of the
survey studies were conducted between the 3rd of study was the determination of farmer satisfaction.
September and 14th of October in 2005. Face to face According to the results, majority of the Köy-Mer
interviews were conducted in 69 provinces with the farmers emphasized on that continuity of the scheme was
collaboration of the 25 research institutes. It was resulted of their benefit (96%). Agricultural advisor comes first
in 731 Köy-Mer and 729 control farmers, 306 advisor in the list of the information sources of the farmers (Fig.
and administrator questionnaires. One of the provinces 2). Another clue of the farmer satisfaction with the
was excluded due to some unexpected limitations. scheme is the priority given to the agricultural advisor in
Analysis of the data: This study, carried out to reveal the list of the civil servants that farmers want in their
the opinions of farmers, administrators of the agricultural villages. Again, the majority of the farmers (90%)
directorates, agricultural advisors, and especially to believe that agricultural advisors are equipped with the
determine the farmer satisfaction regarding the relevant knowledge. According to the farmers, the
application of Köy-Mer Scheme, has the characteristics advisor did his/her work in various places such as office,
of descriptive and cause-effect research. While field, village house, etc. and enlighten the farmers in
descriptive research studies are the studies conducted to different subjects especially in crop production. 85% of
describe the circumstances and events cause-effect the farmers reported that they put the new technology or
studies take into account the interactions between the information into practice, of which 75% stated they
variables examined (Akgungor et al., 1999). For that harvested positive results.
reason, in analysis of the data descriptive statistical
Kırklareli
Edirne
İstanbul Bartın
Tekirdağ
Zonguldak Kastamonu Sinop
Yalova Kocaeli Düzce Karabük
Sakarya Bolu Samsun Artvin
Çankırı
Çanakkale Bursa Amasya Ordu Giresun Rize Ardahan
Bilecik Çorum Trabzon
Balıkesir Ankara Tokat
Eskişehir Gümüşhane Bayburt Kars
Kütahya Kırıkkale
Yozgat Erzurum
Manisa Kırşehir Sivas Erzincan Iğdır
Ağrı
İzmir Uşak Afyon
Tunceli
Nevşehir Bingöl
Aydın Denizli Aksaray Kayseri Muş
Isparta Konya Malatya Elazığ
Niğde Bitlis Van
Muğla Burdur Kahramanmaraş Diyarbakır
Antalya Adıyaman Batman Siirt
Karaman Adana
Mardin Şırnak Hakkâri
İçel Gaziantep Şanlıurfa
Osmaniye Kilis
Hatay
Provinces in the study area
Provinces out of the study area

Fig. 1. The study area

2158
 3.000

Agr. Advisor
2.500

Directorates of Agr.
Total score (1-5 scale)

Pesticide sellers
Other farmers
2.000

Research institutes
Coop./unions

Book, journal, etc.

1.500

Companies
1.000

TV

Radio
500

Fig. 2. Information sources of the farmers

In evaluation of the rest of the factors dealt with in the
study, wheat, barley and alfalfa were taken into
The effect of the scheme on crop production
consideration regarding the whole study area.
practices: In the context of the Köy-Mer scheme, about
two year old during the study, significant changes were b- Variety use: Number of the farmers using local
observed in production pattern, variety use (registered or varieties in wheat and barley was significantly decreased
local), sowing type (hand scattering, drill), seed and in about 2 years. This change was proved by statistical
fertiliser use. analysis in wheat and barley (p<0.000).but not in alfalfa
(p<0,109). Similarly, the difference regarding variety use
a- Production pattern: Considering the whole study
between two groups of farmers were very significant
area the most grown crops were determined to be wheat,
(p<0,000) in wheat; significant in barley, (p<0,052) and
barley, sugar beet, vegetables and alfalfa. The change in
not significant in alfalfa (p<0,882) (Fig. 3).
acreage was found significant only in wheat (p<0,018).

Regis- Regis-
tered Regis- Local tered
42% Local 41%
tered 46% Local
58%
59% 54%

Before After Control

Fig. 3. Changes in variety used in wheat production

c- Type of sowing: Statistical analysis proved a control farmers regarding sowing type was not
significant shift from hand scattering to drill use significant in wheat (p<0,247) but very significant in
(p<0.001). Yet, the difference between Köy-Mer and alfalfa (p<0,001) (Fig. 4).

Drill Drill
23% Drill 19%
35%
Hand Hand
scat- scatte- Hand
tering ring scat-
77% 65% tering
81%

Before After Control

2159
 ABDURRAHMAN KARA
Fig. 4. Changes in type of sowing in alfalfa production
d- Seed rate: A change was also determined in seed rate
in wheat, barley and alfalfa. This change was not
significant in wheat (p<0,115), but significant in barley
(p<0,021) and alfalfa (p<0.012). However, this shift was
not proved between Köy-Mer and control farmers
regarding all crops. This suggests that seed rate
difference in alfalfa was not due to the scheme.
e- Fertiliser use: Fertiliser preferences were not
erroneous in wheat and barley. However, contrary to the
recommendations (Tahtacioglu et al., 1993), especially in
production years, nitrogen was used in alfalfa in
particular. It was concluded that no progress achieved in
fertiliser use by the scheme since no significant
difference was determined between farmer groups.
f- Crop yields: Significant yield increases were recorded
only in barley and wheat (p<0,000). The change in alfalfa
was not significant. Again, there were differences
between Köy-Mer and control farmers in wheat, barley
and alfalfa. Yet, yield differences were proved to be
significant only for wheat (p<0,017) and barley
(p<0,016) between the two groups of farmers.
The effect of the scheme on animal production
practices: It was determined that 80% and 82% of the
Köy-Mer and control farmers keep animals. To reveal the
effect of the scheme on animal production, number of
animal, artificial insemination, vaccination, number of
died animals, amount and composition of roughage and
concentrates per farm were examined.
a- Number of animals per farm: Animal asset per farm
was calculated in both head and animal unit (AU=500 kg
live weight). The difference between Köy-Mer and
control farmers was found significant regarding only
pure bred cattle (p<0,039). Comparing to control farmers
Köy-Mer ones had more pure bred cattle. However, since
there was no difference between before and after the
Köy-Mer Project it is not possible to accept that this
difference is due to the scheme.
b- Artificial insemination: Regarding before and after
the scheme a slight but not significant increase was
determined. Also, number of insemination per farm in
Köy-Mer ones was found significantly higher (p<.0, 009)
than that in control farms.
c- Vaccination: Although number of vaccinated animals
was higher in Köy-Mer farms, there was no difference
between before and after the scheme. The difference
between two groups of farms was significant (p<0.031)
for cattle, but insignificant for small ruminants.
d- Animal deaths: 55% and 58% decreases were
determined between before and after the scheme
regarding the number of farmers reporting animal deaths
and number of animal deaths per farm respectively.
However, no difference was found between two groups
of farmers.
e- Roughages: Fodder constitutes the most important
part of the operation costs in animal production
(Kadioglu et al., 2005) and roughages are the inputs
decreasing the costs in animal production. In this study
2160
there was no significant difference between Köy-Mer and
control farmers in terms of amount and type of forage,
except alfalfa consumption per AU (p<0,019).
f- Concentrates: Data analysis revealed that average
consumption of milking (p<0.011) and fattening
concentrates (p<0.023) per farm significantly increased
while consumption of other concentrates were not
significant (i.e. barley, grain vetch, cotton and sunflower
seeds, bran, etc.).
Administrators: Number of interviewed administrators
was 305 of which 23% were PDA director, 23% farmer
training branch director in PDA and the rest were DDA
directors. Of all 68% declared that Köy-Mer scheme was
of farmers’ benefit and should be sustained after the three
years. 62% also stated that they would apply to be
advisor if they were not public officers.
Agricultural advisors: Of the advisors interviewed for
the study 29% were female. Also, 72 and 18% of them
were agricultural and veterinary graduates respectively
while the rest were from other relevant occupations.
Average age of them was found to be 29,5 and 49% were
married. 57% and 43% of the advisors stated that they
were performing their job in villages and towns
respectively. 96% of them also stated that they received
farmer demands from the vicinity villages as well. On the
other hand, 89% of them were ready to extent their
contracts. The most important problems they encountered
were low salaries and lack of tools and equipment for
farmer training purposes. Advisors also reported their
current employment status (with contract) as unreliable,
comparing to that of public officers (75%). Nevertheless,
82% of the advisors also reported that they could stay by
their own in the villages as an advisor when the Project
ended
Problems: In order to benefit more from the scheme,
problems and the bottlenecks encountered in the
application should be eliminated. So, in this study
another important objective was the determination of the
difficulties and distresses. According to the data analysis
the top ranking problem was related to advisor salaries.
Despite of some limited examples most of the time
advisor salaries were below the amount to keep them in
village conditions. On the contrary, the objectives of the
scheme were very broad as the sources to achieve these
objectives were very limited. However, establishment of
demonstrations, the most effective extension methods in
convincing the farmers, requires land and some expenses.
Also, advisors had to make the expenditures by their own
both in the field and during the travels between the
village and the city due to his/her responsibilities
regarding the advisory work. Moreover, farmers’
unwillingness in contribution to the scheme was reported
to be a problem which caused handicaps in the payment
of advisor salaries. So, in such occasions, some advisors
had to pay it by their own so as to get their salaries
issued. Another important problem, on the other hand,
was related to shelter. A significant percentage of the
advisors reported housing problems in the villages
(43%)(Fig, 5).
 1.000
Total score (1-5 scale) 900

Salary
800

Lack of extension

Transportation
700

materials
600

unwillingness
500

Farmer
400

Housing
300
200
100
0

Fig. 5. Problems of the agricultural advisors

Discussion
Significant changes were observed especially in crop
pattern, variety use and sowing type. Positive effects of
these changes on crop yields were verified with statistical
analysis. Such positive effect was yet limited with
sowing type and no positive change was observed in seed
rate and type of fertiliser in alfalfa since it is a perennial
crop. Possibly, the positive effects of the scheme for this
crop will be seen in time. Moreover, considering the
livestock number per farm it was found that Köy-Mer
farmers had more pure bred animals and performed more
artificial inseminations and vaccinations compared to
control farmers. Parallel to the increases in the acreage of
alfalfa, vetch, sainfoin and silage maize, their amounts in
composition of the roughage grew up. When compared to
before the project and to control farmers it was found that
Köy-Mer farmers used more roughage and less
concentrates per animal unit. Thus, a 19% increase in
roughage consumption resulted in 7% less concentrate
per animal unit.
Through the control farmer comparisons this study
revealed that Köy-Mer scheme resulted in significant
changes especially in production pattern, sowing type,
seed quality, artificial insemination and animal feeding.
These positive findings are more meaningful when
remembering that the effect of the agricultural extension
work can be seen in a long time. For sustainability and
durability of the positive developments experienced in
the Köy-Mer villages in a short period following
measures should be considered.
a. Project area should be expanded through both
number of advisor and the villages under the
responsibility of advisor.
b. A fund should be formed to finance the advisor
salaries and other expenses of the scheme.
c. In order to keep the successful advisors in the
villages, salaries should be increased to a reasonable level
equivalent to the service they provide.
d. Instead of direct contributions to the scheme
from farmers, indirect deductions should be considered.
2161
For example, a certain proportion of the direct payments
to the farmers can be transferred to the fund to be formed
for this purpose.
e. Employment of the agricultural advisors by the
farmer unions and cooperatives should be compulsory or
they should contribute to the Köy-Mer fund to be formed.
f. Agricultural advisors should be selected and
employed according to the Selection Examination for
Professional Posts in Public Organizations (KPSS)
results.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Lutfi
TAHTACIOGLU, former director general of the General
Directorate of Agricultural Research (GDAR), to Mr.
Mehmet TASHAN, director general of the General
Directorate of Organization and Support (GDOS), to Dr.
Mesut KESER, former deputy director general of the
GDAR, to Dr. Cemal CAKMAK, former head of the
research direction department of GDAR, to Mr. Habip
CADIRCI, head of the publishing department of GDOS,
for the favour shown to me and my institute and all kind
of their support in conducting the study as coordinator.
Also, I would like to extend my thanks to the directors of
all institutes took part in the study as well as the
researcher colleagues carrying out the interviews.
Finally, special thanks go to Mr. Serafettin CAKAL,
director of Eastern Anatolia Agricultural Research
Institute for his all kind of support and encouragement
during the study.
References
Akgungor, S., Miran, B.C., Abay, E. & Olhan ve N.K.
Nergis, 1999. Estimation of the Consumers’ Potential
Demand for Environment Friendly Agricultural
Products in İstanbul, Ankara and Izmir Provinces,
Project Report 1993-3, Agricultural Economics
Research Institute, Ankara, Turkiye
Anonymous, 2005a. Support for Village Oriented
Agricultural Production Project, briefing notes,
General Directorate of Organization and Support,
 ABDURRAHMAN KARA

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, August,
Ankara, Turkiye.
Anonymous, 2005b. Decree of Central Coordination
Commission of the Project, Decree No:4, 24
February, Ankara, Turkiye
Anonymous, 2004. The principles of Support for Village
Oriented Agricultural Production Project, Ministry
approval, approval no: YAY.03.009/4287, General
Directorate of Organization and Support, 1st of July,
Ankara, Turkiye
Kadioglu, S., Kara, A. & Kucuk, N. 2005. Determination
of the Economic Competition Power of the Forage
Crops in the Production System in Erzurum, Project
Report, Project No: TAGEM / TA / 03 / 04 / 01 / 008,
Eastern Anatolia Agricultural Research Institute,
Erzurum, Turkiye
Kumuk, T. & Crowder, L.V. 1996. Harmonizing T&V
extension: some experiences from Turkiye, SD
Dimensions, Sustainable Development Department
(SD), Food and Agriculture Organisation of the
United Nations, (FAO).
Tahtacioglu, L., Mermer, A.Z., Ulutas, M. Avcı, &
Seday, R. 1993, Technical Packages, Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Eastern Anatolia
Development Project for Pasture and Meadow
Production, Eastern Anatolia Agricultural Research
Institute, Publication no. 12, Erzurum, Turkiye,
p.124.

2162