Transforming top‐down agricultural extension to a participatory system: a study of costs and prospective benefits in Egypt
Identifieur interne : 000A78 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000A77; suivant : 000A79Transforming top‐down agricultural extension to a participatory system: a study of costs and prospective benefits in Egypt
Auteurs : Gerd Fleischer ; Hermann Waibel ; Gerd Walter-EcholsSource :
- Public Administration and Development [ 0271-2075 ] ; 2002-10.
Abstract
This article challenges some previous assessments of agricultural extension relying on simple measures of costs per farmer trained. Taking the case of Egypt, five pilot projects that aim to transform the existing agricultural extension system to a participatory system are analysed as regards their cost‐effectiveness and prospective cost–benefits. It is shown that the intensity and likely impact of participatory approaches among the different projects vary. Hence, it is insufficient to judge extension programmes by their cost‐effectiveness alone. In the case of cotton, for example, the costs per farmer trained are considerably lower than in horticultural crops but there are large differences in prospective benefits which would make investment in participatory extension in the latter more promising. The article calls for a more careful analysis of the costs of extension programmes in agricultural development and identifies four major cost categories, namely base costs, start‐up costs, recurrent and farmers' costs. The article also submits that in the context of the debate on privatization of agricultural extension there is a role to be played for the public sector in agriculture. The success of participatory approaches to extension will depend on the quality of services provided in connection with farmer training programmes. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Url:
DOI: 10.1002/pad.233
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:32D6FAEC13E25575920A9C133155A468062324BELe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Transforming top‐down agricultural extension to a participatory system: a study of costs and prospective benefits in Egypt</title><author><name sortKey="Fleischer, Gerd" sort="Fleischer, Gerd" uniqKey="Fleischer G" first="Gerd" last="Fleischer">Gerd Fleischer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Rural Development Department, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Waibel, Hermann" sort="Waibel, Hermann" uniqKey="Waibel H" first="Hermann" last="Waibel">Hermann Waibel</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Economics, University of Hanover, Hanover, Germany</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Economics, University of Hanover, Hanover, Germany.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Walter Chols, Gerd" sort="Walter Chols, Gerd" uniqKey="Walter Chols G" first="Gerd" last="Walter-Echols">Gerd Walter-Echols</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Formerly Egyptian–German Integrated Pest Management Project, Cairo, Egypt</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:32D6FAEC13E25575920A9C133155A468062324BE</idno><date when="2002" year="2002">2002</date><idno type="doi">10.1002/pad.233</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/32D6FAEC13E25575920A9C133155A468062324BE/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000A78</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000A78</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Transforming top‐down agricultural extension to a participatory system: a study of costs and prospective benefits in Egypt</title><author><name sortKey="Fleischer, Gerd" sort="Fleischer, Gerd" uniqKey="Fleischer G" first="Gerd" last="Fleischer">Gerd Fleischer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Rural Development Department, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Waibel, Hermann" sort="Waibel, Hermann" uniqKey="Waibel H" first="Hermann" last="Waibel">Hermann Waibel</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Economics, University of Hanover, Hanover, Germany</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Economics, University of Hanover, Hanover, Germany.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Walter Chols, Gerd" sort="Walter Chols, Gerd" uniqKey="Walter Chols G" first="Gerd" last="Walter-Echols">Gerd Walter-Echols</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Formerly Egyptian–German Integrated Pest Management Project, Cairo, Egypt</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Public Administration and Development</title><title level="j" type="sub">The International Journal of Management Research and Practice</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">Public Admin. Dev.</title><idno type="ISSN">0271-2075</idno><idno type="eISSN">1099-162X</idno><imprint><publisher>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</publisher><pubPlace>Chichester, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2002-10">2002-10</date><biblScope unit="volume">22</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="309">309</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="322">322</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0271-2075</idno></series><idno type="istex">32D6FAEC13E25575920A9C133155A468062324BE</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1002/pad.233</idno><idno type="ArticleID">PAD233</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0271-2075</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">This article challenges some previous assessments of agricultural extension relying on simple measures of costs per farmer trained. Taking the case of Egypt, five pilot projects that aim to transform the existing agricultural extension system to a participatory system are analysed as regards their cost‐effectiveness and prospective cost–benefits. It is shown that the intensity and likely impact of participatory approaches among the different projects vary. Hence, it is insufficient to judge extension programmes by their cost‐effectiveness alone. In the case of cotton, for example, the costs per farmer trained are considerably lower than in horticultural crops but there are large differences in prospective benefits which would make investment in participatory extension in the latter more promising. The article calls for a more careful analysis of the costs of extension programmes in agricultural development and identifies four major cost categories, namely base costs, start‐up costs, recurrent and farmers' costs. The article also submits that in the context of the debate on privatization of agricultural extension there is a role to be played for the public sector in agriculture. The success of participatory approaches to extension will depend on the quality of services provided in connection with farmer training programmes. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Gerd Fleischer</name><affiliations><json:string>Rural Development Department, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Hermann Waibel</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Economics, University of Hanover, Hanover, Germany</json:string><json:string>Department of Economics, University of Hanover, Hanover, Germany.</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Gerd Walter‐Echols</name><affiliations><json:string>Formerly Egyptian–German Integrated Pest Management Project, Cairo, Egypt</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><articleId><json:string>PAD233</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>This article challenges some previous assessments of agricultural extension relying on simple measures of costs per farmer trained. Taking the case of Egypt, five pilot projects that aim to transform the existing agricultural extension system to a participatory system are analysed as regards their cost‐effectiveness and prospective cost–benefits. It is shown that the intensity and likely impact of participatory approaches among the different projects vary. Hence, it is insufficient to judge extension programmes by their cost‐effectiveness alone. In the case of cotton, for example, the costs per farmer trained are considerably lower than in horticultural crops but there are large differences in prospective benefits which would make investment in participatory extension in the latter more promising. The article calls for a more careful analysis of the costs of extension programmes in agricultural development and identifies four major cost categories, namely base costs, start‐up costs, recurrent and farmers' costs. The article also submits that in the context of the debate on privatization of agricultural extension there is a role to be played for the public sector in agriculture. The success of participatory approaches to extension will depend on the quality of services provided in connection with farmer training programmes. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>7.472</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>567 x 737 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractCharCount>1385</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>8105</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>51298</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>14</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>206</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Transforming top‐down agricultural extension to a participatory system: a study of costs and prospective benefits in Egypt</title><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><volume>22</volume><publisherId><json:string>PAD</json:string></publisherId><pages><total>14</total><last>322</last><first>309</first></pages><issn><json:string>0271-2075</json:string></issn><issue>4</issue><subject><json:item><value>Research Article</value></json:item></subject><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1099-162X</json:string></eissn><title>Public Administration and Development</title><doi><json:string>10.1002/(ISSN)1099-162X</json:string></doi></host><categories><wos><json:string>social science</json:string><json:string>public administration</json:string><json:string>planning & development</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>economic & social sciences</json:string><json:string>social sciences</json:string><json:string>political science & public administration</json:string></scienceMetrix></categories><publicationDate>2002</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2002</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1002/pad.233</json:string></doi><id>32D6FAEC13E25575920A9C133155A468062324BE</id><score>0.041057356</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/32D6FAEC13E25575920A9C133155A468062324BE/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/32D6FAEC13E25575920A9C133155A468062324BE/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/32D6FAEC13E25575920A9C133155A468062324BE/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Transforming top‐down agricultural extension to a participatory system: a study of costs and prospective benefits in Egypt</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</publisher><pubPlace>Chichester, UK</pubPlace><availability><p>Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</p></availability><date>2002</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Transforming top‐down agricultural extension to a participatory system: a study of costs and prospective benefits in Egypt</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Gerd</forename><surname>Fleischer</surname></persName><affiliation>Rural Development Department, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">Hermann</forename><surname>Waibel</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Economics, University of Hanover, Hanover, Germany</affiliation><affiliation>Department of Economics, University of Hanover, Hanover, Germany.</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-3"><persName><forename type="first">Gerd</forename><surname>Walter‐Echols</surname></persName><affiliation>Formerly Egyptian–German Integrated Pest Management Project, Cairo, Egypt</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Public Administration and Development</title><title level="j" type="sub">The International Journal of Management Research and Practice</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">Public Admin. Dev.</title><idno type="pISSN">0271-2075</idno><idno type="eISSN">1099-162X</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1002/(ISSN)1099-162X</idno><imprint><publisher>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</publisher><pubPlace>Chichester, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2002-10"></date><biblScope unit="volume">22</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="309">309</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="322">322</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">32D6FAEC13E25575920A9C133155A468062324BE</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1002/pad.233</idno><idno type="ArticleID">PAD233</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2002</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>This article challenges some previous assessments of agricultural extension relying on simple measures of costs per farmer trained. Taking the case of Egypt, five pilot projects that aim to transform the existing agricultural extension system to a participatory system are analysed as regards their cost‐effectiveness and prospective cost–benefits. It is shown that the intensity and likely impact of participatory approaches among the different projects vary. Hence, it is insufficient to judge extension programmes by their cost‐effectiveness alone. In the case of cotton, for example, the costs per farmer trained are considerably lower than in horticultural crops but there are large differences in prospective benefits which would make investment in participatory extension in the latter more promising. The article calls for a more careful analysis of the costs of extension programmes in agricultural development and identifies four major cost categories, namely base costs, start‐up costs, recurrent and farmers' costs. The article also submits that in the context of the debate on privatization of agricultural extension there is a role to be played for the public sector in agriculture. The success of participatory approaches to extension will depend on the quality of services provided in connection with farmer training programmes. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="Journal Subject"><list><head>article-category</head><item><term>Research Article</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2002-10">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/32D6FAEC13E25575920A9C133155A468062324BE/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</publisherName><publisherLoc>Chichester, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi registered="yes">10.1002/(ISSN)1099-162X</doi><issn type="print">0271-2075</issn><issn type="electronic">1099-162X</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="PAD"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" xml:lang="en" sort="PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT">Public Administration and Development</title><title type="subtitle">The International Journal of Management Research and Practice</title><title type="short">Public Admin. Dev.</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="40"><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1002/pad.v22:4</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="22">22</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue">4</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2002-10">October 2002</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="3" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1002/pad.233</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="PAD233"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="14"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="articleCategory">Research Article</title><title type="tocHeading1">Research Articles</title></titleGroup><copyright ownership="publisher">Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</copyright><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2002-10-09"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2002-10-09"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:JWSART34_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:HeaderRef result:HeaderRef" date="2010-03-02"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-02-06"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-11-03"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst">309</numbering><numbering type="pageLast">322</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Department of Economics, University of Hanover, Hanover, Germany.</correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:PAD.PAD233.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="2"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="5"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="30"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" xml:lang="en">Transforming top‐down agricultural extension to a participatory system: a study of costs and prospective benefits in Egypt</title><title type="short" xml:lang="en">TRANSFORMING TOP‐DOWN AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION</title></titleGroup><creators><creator xml:id="au1" creatorRole="author" affiliationRef="#af1"><personName><givenNames>Gerd</givenNames><familyName>Fleischer</familyName></personName></creator><creator xml:id="au2" creatorRole="author" affiliationRef="#af2" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>Hermann</givenNames><familyName>Waibel</familyName></personName><contactDetails><email normalForm="waibel@ifgb.uni-hannover.de">waibel@ifgb.uni‐hannover.de</email></contactDetails></creator><creator xml:id="au3" creatorRole="author" affiliationRef="#af3"><personName><givenNames>Gerd</givenNames><familyName>Walter‐Echols</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="af1" countryCode="US" type="organization"><unparsedAffiliation>Rural Development Department, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="af2" countryCode="DE" type="organization"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Economics, University of Hanover, Hanover, Germany</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="af3" countryCode="EG" type="organization"><unparsedAffiliation>Formerly Egyptian–German Integrated Pest Management Project, Cairo, Egypt</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">Abstract</title><p>This article challenges some previous assessments of agricultural extension relying on simple measures of costs per farmer trained. Taking the case of Egypt, five pilot projects that aim to transform the existing agricultural extension system to a participatory system are analysed as regards their cost‐effectiveness and prospective cost–benefits. It is shown that the intensity and likely impact of participatory approaches among the different projects vary. Hence, it is insufficient to judge extension programmes by their cost‐effectiveness alone. In the case of cotton, for example, the costs per farmer trained are considerably lower than in horticultural crops but there are large differences in prospective benefits which would make investment in participatory extension in the latter more promising. The article calls for a more careful analysis of the costs of extension programmes in agricultural development and identifies four major cost categories, namely base costs, start‐up costs, recurrent and farmers' costs. The article also submits that in the context of the debate on privatization of agricultural extension there is a role to be played for the public sector in agriculture. The success of participatory approaches to extension will depend on the quality of services provided in connection with farmer training programmes. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Transforming top‐down agricultural extension to a participatory system: a study of costs and prospective benefits in Egypt</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>TRANSFORMING TOP‐DOWN AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Transforming top‐down agricultural extension to a participatory system: a study of costs and prospective benefits in Egypt</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Gerd</namePart><namePart type="family">Fleischer</namePart><affiliation>Rural Development Department, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Hermann</namePart><namePart type="family">Waibel</namePart><affiliation>Department of Economics, University of Hanover, Hanover, Germany</affiliation><affiliation>Department of Economics, University of Hanover, Hanover, Germany.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Gerd</namePart><namePart type="family">Walter‐Echols</namePart><affiliation>Formerly Egyptian–German Integrated Pest Management Project, Cairo, Egypt</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Chichester, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2002-10</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2002</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType><extent unit="figures">2</extent><extent unit="tables">5</extent><extent unit="references">30</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">This article challenges some previous assessments of agricultural extension relying on simple measures of costs per farmer trained. Taking the case of Egypt, five pilot projects that aim to transform the existing agricultural extension system to a participatory system are analysed as regards their cost‐effectiveness and prospective cost–benefits. It is shown that the intensity and likely impact of participatory approaches among the different projects vary. Hence, it is insufficient to judge extension programmes by their cost‐effectiveness alone. In the case of cotton, for example, the costs per farmer trained are considerably lower than in horticultural crops but there are large differences in prospective benefits which would make investment in participatory extension in the latter more promising. The article calls for a more careful analysis of the costs of extension programmes in agricultural development and identifies four major cost categories, namely base costs, start‐up costs, recurrent and farmers' costs. The article also submits that in the context of the debate on privatization of agricultural extension there is a role to be played for the public sector in agriculture. The success of participatory approaches to extension will depend on the quality of services provided in connection with farmer training programmes. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</abstract><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Public Administration and Development</title><subTitle>The International Journal of Management Research and Practice</subTitle></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>Public Admin. Dev.</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><subject><genre>article-category</genre><topic>Research Article</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">0271-2075</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1099-162X</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1002/(ISSN)1099-162X</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">PAD</identifier><part><date>2002</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>22</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>309</start><end>322</end><total>14</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">32D6FAEC13E25575920A9C133155A468062324BE</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1002/pad.233</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">PAD233</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>WILEY</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Agronomie/explor/SisAgriV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000A78 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000A78 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Agronomie
|area= SisAgriV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:32D6FAEC13E25575920A9C133155A468062324BE
|texte= Transforming top‐down agricultural extension to a participatory system: a study of costs and prospective benefits in Egypt
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.28. |  |