Better farmer training may start with less information

On Bhola Island, a low-lying delta in southern Bangladesh, groundnut farmers work against a long list of threats: crop pests, unpredictable monsoons, disease outbreaks, and the costs and environmental pressures that can come with frequent pesticide use.

For more than a decade, the island also has been an important place of Virginia Tech research and partnership, where faculty, students, and international collaborators have worked to improve agricultural productivity, sustainability, and farmer livelihoods.

That kind of sustained engagement is central to the work of the Center for International Research, Education, and Development (CIRED), which helps connect faculty expertise with global partners, externally funded research, and development programs designed to address complex challenges in communities around the world.

“What makes this work powerful is that it connects rigorous research with long-term engagement on the ground,” said Tom Archibald, the center’s executive director. “Through CIRED and the IPM [Integrated Pest Management] Innovation Lab, Virginia Tech has been working in places like Bhola Island for years, building partnerships that allow research findings to translate into real changes in how development programs are designed and delivered.”

Nandini Das M.A. '21, Ph.D. '26 spent three years studying how agricultural training shapes what farmers actually do in their fields. Her research, supported by the IPM Innovation Lab Associate Award from the USAID Bangladesh Mission and administered by the Center for International Research, Education, and Development, found something that may seem counterintuitive: Giving farmers more information doesn’t always lead to better results.

In some cases, it can get in the way.

Das found that information overload could deter farmers from adopting profitable inputs. When a single training session asks farmers to absorb multiple new technologies at once, especially in settings where literacy constraints and limited follow-up support are common, the cognitive burden can become too great.

Farmers cannot act on what they cannot fully process.

“It can be easy to assume that more information leads to better decisions, but that’s not always how it works in practice,” said Anubhab Gupta, assistant professor in the Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics. “Nandini’s research helps explain why well-intentioned training programs sometimes fall short in achieving welfare benefits for farmers — and how small changes in design, sequencing information, and extension support can make the programs far more effective.”

Das’ work was supervised by Gupta and grew out of a larger training intervention through the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Integrated Pest Management, led by Rangaswamy Muniappan.

Since 2023, the IPM Innovation Lab has worked with farmers on Bhola Island to study and promote practices that reduce pest damage while helping farmers make more targeted, sustainable pest-management decisions.

A redesigned approach delivers results

Motivated by Das’ findings, the research team redesigned the intervention.

The revised program narrowed its focus to integrated pest management practices and paired that training with season-long extension support. Farmers could ask questions and get guidance at each stage of the growing season, rather than trying to absorb and apply everything at once.

The results were striking.

Adoption of integrated pest management inputs increased significantly, and chemical pesticide use fell by 30 to 50 percent among participating farmers. Those who adopted the new practices also saw measurable gains in yields. Farmers who embraced integrated pest management in the first stages of the season were likely to sustain and deepen their participation as the season progressed.

Lessons for policymakers and program designers

Das’ work carries clear implications for how development programs are designed and evaluated. Effective agricultural training requires not just good content, but the right sequencing, sustained support, and messaging that resonates with farmers’ immediate concerns.

Emphasizing cost savings and reduced chemical exposure, rather than distant productivity gains alone, can help farmers see the relevance of new practices in their own lives.

“Embracing change is difficult,” said Sudipta Sarangi, head of the Department of Economics in the College of Science and one of Das’ co-advisors. “While Nandini’s study focused on groundnut farmers on Bhola Island, its insights extend far beyond this setting, offering valuable lessons on how to support individuals in making complex and uncertain technology adoption decisions.”

For Virginia Tech, the work reflects a broader commitment to applied research that improves lives beyond campus and across borders. It also shows how university centers can help faculty, students, and partners sustain the kind of long-term international engagement needed to turn research findings into practice.

Through the IPM Innovation Lab, CIRED, and their partners, Virginia Tech is helping development organizations better understand how to design programs that farmers can use, sustain, and build on.

On Bhola Island, that starts with a simple but important insight: Sometimes, better training begins with asking farmers to learn less at once, and supporting them more along the way.

“This is a good example of how collaboration across colleges and research centers allows Virginia Tech to tackle complex global challenges,” Archibald said. “When economists, pest management experts, and development practitioners work together, the results are stronger — and more useful — for the communities we aim to serve.”

Written by Anubhab Gupta and Amanda Broome