This approach was implemented from 1975 up until 1989. As implementation progressed, the extension service developed fatigue with this system due to the following reasons:

1. The T & V system could not be replicated in other districts where the donor finance was not available as it was costly to sustain in terms of both financial and human resources.
2. The main emphasis was put on technical recommendations which farmers and extension workers found uninteresting when the same messages were repeated.
3. The system emphasized more on the production aspects, and in the absence of corresponding post-harvest and agribusiness activities for value addition, farmers, extension workers and entrepreneurs experienced disincentives to raise production and productivity.
4. The support services for inputs, credit and marketing were weak compared to farmers’ demand due to weak partnership and linkage between extension and the various stakeholders.
5. Extension workers lacked motivation, and regular supervision especially of the front-line Village Level Agriculture Assistants (VLAAs), was hampered. VLAAs were not motivated given the meager honorariums paid to them and eventually sought to discontinue making regular visits to contact farmers.
6. The system could not be replicated in the hilly areas owing to poor communication infrastructure given the difficult terrain where households are more scattered.