History of Agricultural Extension: The Farm

Family as Its Focus

Introduction

As a rural development educator, knowledge and understanding of the

historical account of agricultural extension provide the strong entry point for
students to appreciate extension education in the Philippines with the realization
that the farm family is the real focus of agricultural extension.

Beginnings of Agricultural Extension in the Philippines

Agricultural extension may be traced back from the Spanish regime, when
the Granja modelos or model farm was introduced. Granja modelos were simply
experimental or demonstration centers for farmers during the 19th century.

When the Americans came at the turn of the century, extension services
were expanded by creating the Bureau of Agriculture, with the Administrative
Division, doing the extension service program. In the succeeding years,
important changes took place like the creation of Demonstration and Extension
Division which included farmer’s cooperative, rural credit, marketing and animal
insurance in 1918; and the splitting of the Bureau of Agriculture into Bureau of
Plant Industry and the Bureau of Animal Industry in 1928. The agricultural
extension division was placed under the Bureau of Plant Industry and later on
renamed agricultural division in 1932. This division carried out extension services
up to the assumption of Mr. Manuel L. Quezon, as President of the
Commonwealth in 1938.

In the provinces, extension service was done by the provincial

agriculturist and home demonstrators by virtue of Commonwealth Act No. 85 in
1936. This Act widened the extension service coverage as it authorized local
government units to support extension service logistically up to years
immediately preceding World War II.

The Bureau of Agricultural Extension (BAEx) was created on July 16,

1952 by virtue of R.A. 650. The BAEx consolidated all existing extension services
being carried out by different offices.

The BAEx was changed into Agriculture Productivity Commission (APC)

when R.A. 3844 or the Land Reform Code was enacted in 1963. It was placed
directly under the office of the President, “for the purpose of accelerating
progressive improvement of farm productivity, the advancement of farmers and
strengthening of existing agricultural services via the consolidation of all
promotional, educational and informational activities pertaining to agriculture.”

Republic Act No. 188 of 1967 decentralized the functions of BAEx and
granted autonomous powers to the local government unit to appoint their
respective provincial agriculturist and municipal extension workers.

The imposition of Martial Law in 1972 changed everything in the field of

agricultural extension service. Presidential Decree No. 1 (P.D. No. 1) and
Presidential Letter of Implementation No. 9, reverted APC to its original name,
BAEx and its control was returned to Department of Agriculture and Natural
Resources on November 1, 1972 with P.D. 970 abolishing the Farm
Management Office of DAR transferring its function to BAEx.

Recent Development in the

Agricultural Extension System

To insure the delivery of basic services in the agricultural extension

system, the Congress of the Philippines enacted into law the Local Government
Code (RA No. 7160) in 1991. Among other provisions, the Code decentralized
authority to local government units (LGUs) the management and supervision of
agricultural extension system of the country. It devolved the power to administer
the extension service at the provincial, city, municipal and barangay levels.
Correspondingly, the National Government gave LGUs access to resources. The
extension service personnel and assets were transferred to the LGUs and their
internal revenue allotment was increased from 17 percent to 30 percent in 1991,
35 percent in 1992 and 40 percent in 1993 onwards. In addition, the LGUs were
given enough powers to generate resources at their levels for funding
development projects within their jurisdiction (Serrano, 1994).

In the province, the governor is the administrator of the extension system.

The provincial extension system program plan and activities are implemented by
a provincial agriculturist and field personnel. In the city, the city mayor
administers the extension program through the city agriculturist and the field
personnel; while in the municipality, the municipal mayor administers the town
extension program. It is carried on by the municipal agriculturist and the field
personnel.

In the barangay level, the barangay captain heads the extension system
with the barangay councilor for agriculture as his operational assistant, together
with the extension worker assigned in the barangay.

It should be mentioned that in every level, the administrator of the

extension program is empowered by their respective legislative council. The
respective agriculture officer establishes a workable linkage with the legislative
councils in different levels within the province, national government agencies and
NGOs.

The Farm Family:

Focus of Agricultural Extension

The farm family as cited by Medina and Ancheta (1978) can be described
typically as consisting of six (6) to seven (7) members on the average. This is
quite a large family size which stems from the belief that children are gifts and
blessings from God, economic assets, bundles of joy and insurance in the future
of parents.
 It was also averred by the same authors that rural parents have an
average of six years of schooling. The implication of this level of education can
be multi-dimensional. For one, it becomes a barrier to acquiring knowledge on
new farming and homemaking practices; a factor for rural parents to resist
change and stick to their traditional ways; prevent them from trying a new
practice even at reasonable risks because they would not want to be different
from the others; and a feeling of fatalism or strong ability to change events
affecting their lives and that life is controlled by some outside force in which there
is little they can do thereby leaving everything to chance or (“Bahala Na”).

This social behavior manifestation of rural parents can be characterized

by strong pattern of mutual helpfulness and neighborliness. The “pakikisama”
attitude, “kahiya-hiya,” “utang na loob” and strong family ties as part of their
culture tend to contribute to the slow-pace occurring in their sides.

The focus of rural family’s development can well be directed on these

major concerns:

1. How could health and nutrition of rural people improved?

2. What are the means to relieve poverty?
3. What are the ways to improve productivity?
4. How can the population problem be solved?
5. How in general, can the well-being of the rural people be improved?

The answers to these questions may be effective through an extension

service with government’s direction as supplier of inputs or marketing agents and
sources of easy credits and the establishment of support structure like research
unit, irrigation, water and power development, rural development program and
health services.

Subsequently, indicators of a successful agricultural development

progress are adequate food and diet, reasonable level of financial security and
an environment in which the entire farm family can function on accepted norms
(Watts 1984).
 Activity
1. Have you come across different agricultural extension activities
undertaken under each regime? If yes, put together these activities under
each regime logically. If no, read the history of agricultural extension and
put together all activities done under each regime.

2. Why is the historical account of agricultural extension important? List

down and substantiate with reasons.

3. With the advent of the latest science and technological advancement,

describe a typical farm family by conducting a simple farm family survey
taking into account their socio-economic profile and cultural practices.

4. Visit your municipal agricultural office (MAO) and describe its extension
program, project and activities.

Self Activity Quiz #1 (SAQ

#1)
Time started: Time finished:

1. What was the most important development in agricultural extension education

that occurred under each regime?

1.1 Spanish regime

1.2 American regime

1.3 Commonwealth period

1.4 Period of the Republic Act of the Philippines

1.5 Martial Law period

 1.6 Post Martial Law Period

2. How do you describe a typical rural Filipino family in terms of:

2.1 size of family

2.2 educational attainment

2.3 social behavior

3. What constitute the major focus of rural development?

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

 Answers to SAQ #1
1.1 Spanish Regime – establishment of Granja modelos or model
farms

1.2 American Period:

a. establishment of Bureau of Agriculture
b. creation in 1918 of demonstration and extension division with
farmer’s cooperative, rural credit, marketing and animal
insurance
c. splitting of the Bureau of Agriculture into Bureau of Animal
Industry and Bureau of Plant Industry in 1928
d. renaming agricultural extension division as agricultural division
under the Bureau of Plant Industry in 1932

1.3 Commonwealth Period – Approval of Commonwealth Act No. 85,

which established the participation and support of local
government unit to provincial agricultural and home demonstration
centers.

1.4 Period of the Philippine Republic

a. Passed R.A. 680 creating the Bureau of Agricultural Extension
 b. Passed R.A. 3844 in 1963 or the Land Reform Code,
renaming BAEx as Agricultural Productivity Commission under
the office of the President
c. Passed R.A. 188 in 1967 granting autonomous power to local
government unit to appoint their respective provincial
agriculturist and extension workers

1.5 Martial Law Period

a. P.D. No. 1 and LOI No. 9 reverted APC to BAEx and returned
it to DANR in 1972
b. P.D. 970 abolished the Farm Management office of DAR and
transferred its functions to BAEx

1.6 Present status in agricultural extension system

The enactment of RA 7160 otherwise known as the Local

Government Code devolved the delivery of basic extension
services to local government units. In the provincial level, the
governor administers the extension service program; city level, the
city mayor; municipal level, the municipal mayor; and barangay
level, the barangay captain assisted by a councilor for agriculture
and an extension worker assigned in that barangay.

The implementation of plans and activities is left to the

agricultural officer and field personnel who establish workable
linkages with NGOs and POs and other government agencies.
The administrator in every level is empowered by their respective
legislative council.
2. A typical rural Filipino family can be described as: big family with 6-7
members; and an educational level of 6 years schooling.

3. Social behavior manifestation of rural family can be described in terms of

a. strong pakikisama attitude, kahiya-hiya, and utang na loob syndrome
b. strong family ties
c. mutual helpfulness and neighborliness

4. The major concerns constituting the focus of rural family development can be
cited as:
a. improving the health and nutrition of the members of the family;
b. ways to relieve poverty;
c. ways to increase productivity;
d. population problem; and
e. generally speaking, the well-being of the rural people