Activity Report of Ecofriendly IPM Field School_Rampur Campus

“Learning by Doing, Learning by Experience”

ACTIVITY REPORT OF ECO-FRIENDLY IPM FIELD SCHOOL Students’-Farmers’ Field School

ABSTRACT Inclusion of students in

farmers’ field school had

only purpose of making

the future young

agriculturists well skilled

and experienced one so

that knowledge acquired

by them will be

disseminated and

extended among the

farmers and

environmentalists as well

for healthy nation

building.

Dipendra Kumar Ayer [email protected], www.facebook.com/ayerdk, np.linkedin.com/in/ayerdk

IPM Facilitator : Mr. LekhnathAdhikari (+977-9845442186)

Farmers’ Facilitator : Mr. Basudev Sapkota (+977-9855053033)

Field School Coordinator : Mr. Dipendra Kumar Ayer (+977-9848809382)

Field School Organizer: IPM – (S) FFS Group, IAAS, Rampur Campus

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AESA Agro-Ecosystem Analysis

AFU Agriculture and Forestry University

B.Sc.Ag. Bachelor of Science in Agriculture

DADO District Agriculture Development Office

DAP Di-Ammonium Phosphate

DAS Days after Sowing

DIC District IPM Committee

DOA Department of Agriculture

F1 First Generation

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UN)

FFS Farmer Field School

FP Farmers’ Practice/Plots

FYM Farm Yard Manure

IAAS Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science

ICM Integrated Crop Management

IP IPM Plots

IPM Integrated Pest Management

IPM-(S) FFS Integrated Pest Management-(Students’) Farmers’ Field School

LDO Local Development Office

LI Local Inhabitants

MOAD Ministry of Agriculture Development

MOP Murate of Potash

NG Nepal Government

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NPK Nitrogen-Phosphorus-Potash

OP Open Pollinated

PAR Participatory Action Research

PP Plant To Plant

RR Row To Row

VDCs Village Development Committees

FORWARD

Farmers’ Field Schools in academic institutions has been realized as one of the most important

ways of teaching learning step for quality education sharing. This is one of the participatory

teaching learning process where participants try to find out the problems, discuss in the groups

and make a common solution and practice in the field in participatory ways. This IPM Field

School is run for training to the farmers or participants and to bring agricultural extension staff,

NGO staff and make farmers able of being good farmer field school facilitators. It continues

the tradition of teaching as the facilitators will teach focusing on methods that are practical and

readily replicable with keen interest to the farmers. The farmers’ field school in the University

level has significant importance for quality education deliverables. It should be

institutionalized in the system and should be prioritized as a basis of teaching learning process

for the academic students in the University level of education. The crop management

approaches has been considered in FFS as a holistic approaches and where basic resources is

mainstreamed for receiving the targeted output. The FFS not only provide the better teaching

learning process but also helps to increase the confidence among the participants to develop

the leadership. The leadership for running the field school has already been developed by Mr.

Dipendra Kumar Ayer, who has initiated the IPM field school in the institute.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to acknowledge all the helping hands who directly or indirectly contributed to

make the training very successful. I want to thank Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science

(IAAS) for management of partial support for the training. Special thanks goes to Agriculture

and Forestry University (AFU) for supporting the financial activities and providing the place

for the program to get conducted successfully. I express my sincere gratitude to IPM facilitator

Mr. Lekhnath Adhikari, senior plant protection training officer from the Directorate of

Agricultural Training, DOA, Hariharbhawan, for providing his precious time for sharing

experiences in field school and farmers’ facilitator Mr. Basudev Sapkota for enabling the

participants in practical actions during field school. I acknowledge Assoc. Prof. Sundar Tiwari

for his valuable comments and support during this field school. I owe my colleagues and the

group leaders Krishna Dhakal, Upasana Dhakal, Arjun subedi, Keshav Chandra Bagale and

Mamata Basyal, for their coordination and immense support, without them it wouldn’t have

been so successful. I really appreciate the marketing committee for the excellent working

environment that they made during harvesting and selling of the IPM products. Special thanks

go to marketing coordinator, Mr. Sheetal Aryal for his continuous and tireless efforts in dealing

with customers, the members there who were always ready to offer help whenever called upon.

Last but not the least, thanks go to DADO, DIC, PPD and other local IPM farmers’ group for

their presence, continuous monitoring & support to make this season long program successful.

I would also like to remember all the farmers who have been involved in the implementation

of this program. A special thanks to Mr. Yam Prasad Adhikari for his valuable advice and

comments.

It’s difficult to mention everyone here by name and for those not mentioned, please accept my

apology. Thank you all.

Dipendra Kumar Ayer

Coordinator

Eco-friendly IPM Field School, Rampur Campus

Table of Contents

1. Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1

2. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

3. Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................... 2

4. Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 4

5. Participants and Site Selection ........................................................................................... 4

6. Fund Raising From Participants and Others ....................................................................... 4

7. Methodology and Dissemination of Technologies ............................................................. 6

7.1 Spatial Design for SFFS and PAR plots...................................................................... 7

7.2 Dissemination through IPM plots and Farmers’ plots: ............................................... 7

7.3 Dissemination through PAR plots: .............................................................................. 9

7.4 Treatments: ................................................................................................................ 10

7.5 Weekly followed activities ........................................................................................ 10

8. Other Disseminated Technologies .................................................................................... 11

8.1 Preparations of Eco-friendly IPM Field School ........................................................ 11

8.1.1 GHARELU BISHADI (घरेल ुबिषादी) or Homemade Pesticide Preparation ............ 11

8.1.2 JHOL Mal (झोल मल)or Homemade Liquid Fertilizer Preparation ....................... 12

8.1.3 BOKASI Mal (िोकासी मल) or Homemade Bokasi Fertilizer Preparation ............. 13

8.1.4 Vermicomposting ............................................................................................... 13

8.2 General IPM Knowledge ........................................................................................... 13

9. Results .............................................................................................................................. 14

9.1 Quantitative Results: ................................................................................................. 14

9.1.1 Capacity Building .............................................................................................. 14

9.1.2 Technical Results ............................................................................................... 14

9.2 Qualitative results ....................................................................................................... 16

10. Students’-Farmers’ Day ................................................................................................ 16

10.1 Inauguration of Ecofriendly IPM Field School ......................................................... 16

10.2 Closing Ceremony of Ecofriendly IPM Field School ............................................... 17

10.2.1 Technologies overviewed .................................................................................. 17

ii. Crops Section ............................................................................................................ 17

iii. Presentation Section .................................................................................................. 17

10.2.2 Guest of Honour ................................................................................................. 17

10.2.3 IPM-(S) FFS Group ........................................................................................... 18

11. Conclusion and Perspective .......................................................................................... 18

12. Recommendation ............................................................................................................ 19

13. Major Pest of Bitter Gourd ........................................................................................... 20

14. Snapshots of Eco-friendly IPM Field School ............................................................... 21

15. References ..................................................................................................................... 24

1 | P a g e E c o - f r i e n d l y I P M F i e l d S c h o o l , R a m p u r C a m p u s

1. Summary

The report summarizes the activities and progress of farmers’ field school conducted in Bitter

Gourd organized and managed by the students of B.Sc. Agriculture, 3rd Year (6th Semester,

batch-2010/11), Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science (IAAS), Rampur Campus.

Technical support was provided by Directorate of Agricultural Training, DOA,

Hariharbhawan, District Agriculture Development Office (DADO), Chitwan and District IPM

Farmers Association, Chitwan and the financial support by Faculty of Agriculture, Agriculture

and Forestry University (AFU), and partial funding by IAAS. The participants themselves

collected fund for the training. IPM is the sensible solution to pest problems, no matter what

the setting is. This season long (4 months) IPM-(S)FFS training i.e. the inclusion of students

in farmers’ field school had only purpose of making young agriculturists well skilled and

experienced one so that the knowledge acquired by them will be disseminated and extended

among the farmers and environmentalists as well for protecting the environment .It has enabled

the participants in stimulated continued learning, and it strengthened social and

political/leadership skills, which apparently prompted a range of local activities, relationships

and improved agro-ecosystem management. The training was based on participatory teaching

learning where group of individuals discussed on the problems, make and come up with

common solutions. The participatory discussion, preparation of cropping calendar, AESA

techniques, special classes, group dynamics, small research designs were the beauty of the

training.

2. Introduction

The Ecofriendly IPM-FS program was conducted at IAAS, Rampur to manage the pest through

integrated methods in bitter gourd crop. IPM practitioners has been using judiciously all pest

management approaches like biological, cultural, mechanical, and chemical controls. One of

the main activities scheduled by Eco-Friendly IPM Field School is the use of farmer field

school (FFS) to disseminate the technologies developed by agriculturists and to strengthen the

country’s technology transfer processes. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs based

on the Farmer Field School approach are being implemented in many countries. Their benefits

have been recognized by a broad range of stakeholders, including farming communities, local

and national governments, NGOs and donors, who are now supporting such programs.

Bitter gourd is one of the most popular cucurbitaceous vegetable. The bitter gourd (Momordica

charantia L.), looks like a cucumber but with ugly gourd-like bumps all over it. As the name


implies, this vegetable is a melon that is bitter. It is grown for its immature tuberculate fruits

which have a unique bitter taste. Fruits are considered as a rich source of vitamins and minerals

and 88 mg vitamin C per 100 g. Fruits are used after cooking and delicious preparations are

made after stuffing and frying. During periods of glut in market, fruits are sliced, partially

boiled with salt and dried under direct sunlight and stored for months. This is used after frying.

Bitter gourd fruits have medicinal value and are used for curing diabetes, asthma, blood

diseases and rheumatism. Drinking fresh bitter gourd juice is recommended by naturopaths.

Roots and stem of wild bitter gourd are used in many ayurvedic medicines. Bitter Gourd is

grown extensively throughout Nepal, the fruit is wormicidal and good for rheumatism. It is a

warm season crop. Hot and moist weather is favorable for its growth and development. Low

temperature is good for germination of seeds. Bitter gourd is a warm season crop with wide

adaptability. Ideal temperature for its growth and flowering is 25-30 0C. Crop can be grown

even in places of slight lower temperature and high rainfall areas. Production of female

flowers, fruit set and growth of plant are seen affected above 35 0C and will be susceptible to

viral infections. As seeds have a hard seed coat, germination is affected below 10 0C. Well

drained and fertile sandy loam or silt loam is ideal for the crop. In hills, the crop is sown during

April-May. In plains where season is early, bitter gourd is sown during January-March.

3. Statement of the Problem

Bitter gourd is widely cultivated in South Indian regions and all over Nepal. Because of the

high nutritive value and medicinal purposes, it is becoming the most popular and emerging

vegetables in South Asian countries. As a vegetable, its nutritive value is very important. The

considerable increases in bitter gourd production is no doubt remarkable, but the fact remains

that the bitter gourd growers are engrossed with a number of problems like pests and diseases,

high labor charge etc. Keeping these in view, study was also carried out with the objective of

identifying the constraints encountered in the cultivation of bitter gourd. A list of constraints

collected through review of literature, discussion and experience of the researchers and of our

own during field school were collected and the respondents were asked to indicate whether

they were experiencing the constraints or not, in the cultivation of bitter gourd. These

constraints were grouped into production and economic constraints. Among the production

constraints, incidence of pests and diseases followed by labor scarcity, non-availability of

inputs and weather problems. The other constraints included uneven production and

unawareness of plant protection measures. Economic constraints include high cost of material

inputs followed by high labor charge, price fluctuation of the produce faced by the bitter gourd


farmers, inadequate credit facilities, high transporting charges and inadequate marketing

facilities etc. It could be concluded that there exists a need to launch a massive training program

to motivate and educate the farmers to adopt effective plant protection measures. Efforts should

be taken by the extension agencies to strengthen the infrastructure facilities and to evolve low

cost technologies, which can be easily adopted by the farmers. Many studies in Nepal and India,

however, showed that despite the attributes of the crop, bitter gourd yields at farm level is very

low. Pests is one of the major constraints for bitter gourd production by direct reduction of crop

yield and quality, or indirectly by acting as vectors of important plant diseases. Insecticides are

the most effective control measure against pests. Thus, some farmers do not hesitate to use any

pesticide to achieve their goal. However, most farmers in Nepal are resource-poor and cannot

afford the use of pesticides. Moreover, insecticides are toxic and when used excessively may

be harmful to human health and the environment. Extent of bitter gourd yield losses as a result

of insect and pests’ infestation and diseases has serious implications on the food and economic

output of Nepalese peasant. If tropical farmers are to increase their net output on the land

available and to catch up with the food demands of the increasing rural and urban populations,

there is a need for pest management strategies that are cost-effective, sustainable and that

exclude or minimize the use of insecticides.

Farmers often think that the technologies brought to them are not fully suitable for their farms.

Moreover, they are not adapted to local conditions such as soil fertility, water availability,

realities of household economy, and the objectives that farm families wish to achieve.

Demonstrative plots managed by outsiders may not convince farmers to try something new.

However, farmer needs to experiment new technologies, to learn how to evaluate different

options and to decide what is best for them. Only an adult non-formal education can provide

such opportunity. Adult learns best from direct experience. “If I hear it, I forget it. If I see it,

I remember it. If I discover it, I own it for life”. So, This Farmer Field School (FFS) is based

on the principles of non-formal education, and was used to address the adoption of cucurbit

technologies among Nepalese farmers. The term “Farmer Field Schools” came from the

Indonesian expression Sekolah Lapangan meaning field school. The first field schools were

established in 1989 in Central Java to test and develop field training methods as part of IPM

training of trainers’ course. The training was undertaken by the FAO assisted Indonesian

National IPM Program on rice. The name field school was chosen to reflect the educational

goals, the course took place in the field, and the field conditions defined most of the curriculum,

but real field problems were observed, and analyzed from planting of the crop to harvest. That


is the reason farmers’ field schools are becoming the important part of teaching learning

process.

4. Objectives

The objectives by choosing IPM-(S) FFS as disseminating and training approach are to:

1. Strengthen the capacity building of academicians on IPM field school.

2. Demonstrate the proven IPM technology in the vegetable cultivation in the farmers’

field to encourage the use of IPM practices.

3. Increase farmer profit by using appropriate bitter gourd management practices with

minimum disturbance to the environment.

4. Make farmers experts of bitter gourd production in their field.

5. Promote local creativity and local resources.

6. Train the B.Sc.Agriculture students and school administrators in IPM technologies to

increase their skills and knowledge.

7. Reducing the use of chemical pesticides in agricultural practices and encourage the use

of common sense practices in agriculture based on the current information.

5. Participants and Site Selection

Country No. of Participants SFFS Sites Participants Status

Nepal 36 Students and 5

Farmers

Pathology

Experimental Plot,

IAAS.

Farmers: from

VDCs;

Students : IAAS,

Rampur Campus

Agricultural

Extension Agents

Campus

Administrators

6. Fund Raising From Participants and Others

Fund Raised from IAAS, Rampur Campus – Rs. 10000 only.

Fund Raised from AFU, Rampur – Rs. 40000 only.

Fund Raised From Registrar Office, AFU, Chitwan – Rs. 5000 only.

Fund Raised from Students – 26500 only.


Total Fund Raised = Rs. 81500 Only.

S.N. Name of the Participants Contact No. Fund Raised / Remarks

1. Aastha Dahal 9841516697 800

2. Anupama Sharma 9845153909 800

3. Arjun Khanal 9815440434 800

4. Arjun Subedi 9845195435 800

5. Ashmit K.C. 9849321337 800

6. Ateet Maharjan 9845206495 700

7. Bhupendra Bhatta 9845530068 800

8. Bikram Poudel 9849425645 800

9. Bindu Upadhyaya 9848679653 800

10. Biplov Oli 9811208812 200

11. Debaka Kandel 9845368137 800

12. Deepak Vitrakoti 9845365534 800

13. Dinesh Khanal 9845721172 800

14. Dipendra Kumar Ayer 9848809382 800

15. Keshav Chandra Bagale 9845480748 800

16. Koshraj Upadhyay 9845584883 800

17. Krishna Dhakal 9849004629 800

18. Laxman Pandey 9845541379 800

19. Lokendra Pandey 9848414748 800

20. Mahesh Kunwar 9845470306 800

21. Mamta Bashyal 9847534129 800

22. Prakash Adhikari 9845211188 000

23. Prava Adhikari 9845390258 800

24. Rabin Giri 9847822931 800

25. Raju Acharya 9848079163 800

26. Sachit Malla 9845218340 800

27. Sagar G.C. 9847108883 800

28. Sameer Singh Barai Magar 9819425840 800

29. Saroj Regmi 9855050305 800

30. Sheetal Aryal 9845394277 800


31. Shreesha Upreti 9804095588 800

32. Sunil Dulal 9845415178 800

33. Sunil Joshi 9841615321 800

34. Susmita Khanal 9845090468 800

35. Swati Shrestha 9849098103 800

36. Upasana Dhakal 9845205015 800

37. Bimala Adhikari 9845711363 Farmer

38. Dhan Bahdur K.C. 9845364234 Farmer

39. Shyam Kumar Piya 9851144667 Farmer

40. Sunita Panta 9845654629 Farmer

41. Tara Adhikari 9845611659 Farmer

7. Methodology and Dissemination of Technologies

Field School Site: The whole activity was conducted in the experimental field of Institute of

Agriculture and Animal Science (IAAS), Rampur, Chitwan from 3rd December 2014. The

precise latitude, longitude and altitude as recorded by GPS (global positioning system) of IAAS

are 270 39’ N latitude, 840 24’ E longitude and 228 masl, respectively.

Major Crop of Study: Bitter Gourd (Hybrid)

Demonstration Crops: Cucumber, Summer Squash, Sponge Gourd, Bottle Gourds,

Pumpkin, Bitter Gourds (OP)

The main learning material is the living bitter gourd field and other demonstration plots of

cucurbits. The pedagogic approach of the field school was non-formal education. The basic

principles of the SFFS developed by the trainers were the following:

Grown healthy bitter gourd plants

Monitoring of field (on weekly basis)

Conservation of natural enemies

Make farmers/participants experts in bitter gourd production

Students and farmers were trained directly by the facilitators. However, in most of the FFS,

training is oriented to the extension and research agents, and farmers were trained by the

participants in the practice of what they have learnt. In general, it was a season-long IPM


training via SFFS where concepts and theories were discovered and drawn from the field and

linked to previous conceptions and experiences.

The field school consisted of a group of 36 students and 5 farmer participants who were divided

into 5 subgroups of 6-8 each. Farmers were selected on a voluntary basis and agreed to meet

once a week for 4 to 6 hours for field activities. Each subgroup had its own farmers practice

(FP) plots and integrated crop management (IPM/ICM) plots. Beside the FFS plots, the

participatory action research (PAR) plots or demonstration plots were installed for

investigation or validation of research and indigenous technologies/knowledge. The

participants carried out the experiments themselves.

7.1 Spatial Design for SFFS and PAR plots

7.2 Dissemination through IPM plots and Farmers’ plots:

Many technologies from research institutes and through experienced persons were

disseminated through IPM and Farmers’ plots (Table 1).

Table: 1. Field practices and technologies disseminated through IPM plots and Farmers’ plot

in SFFS

S.N. Practices Eco-friendly IPM Field School Specifications


IPM Plots (IP) Farmers’ Plot (FP)

1. Area 250 m2 250 m2

2. Varieties Palee-F1 Palee-F1

3. Germination test seeds in line and no. of germinated seeds in 1 week

were counted

4. Land preparation Disc ploughing twice and gentle hand hoe twice

5. Planting Plot/Seed bed Flat

6. Number of seeds per pit 2 seeds/pit

7. Planting spacing PP X RR = 2.25m. X

1.5m.

PP X RR = 4 hands (48

inches) X 3 hands(36

inches)

8. Fertilisation at the time of

sowing

DAP =10 g.

MOP = 5 g.

FYM = 2 Kg. per pit

FYM = 2 Kg. per pit

9. Refilling/thinning 2 weeks after sowing

Gap filling by sowing the seeds soaked for 24

hours

10. Irrigation In every two days, in the evening till the full

germination and thereafter twice in a week

11. Weeding Based on AESA

decision

Based on Farmers’

decision

12. Botanical pesticides Gharelu Bishadi @ 1:8

and applied 25 DAS

none

13. Chemical pesticides Krinoxyl Gold

(Metalaxyl 8%

+Mancozeb 64 %) @ 1.5

g. per liter of water and

applied @ 0.5 liter per

plant or pit for

preventing Damping Off

at 14DAS

Krinoxyl Gold (Metalaxyl

8% +Mancozeb 64 %) @

1.5 g. per liter of water and

applied @ 0.5 liter per

plant or pit for preventing

Damping Off at 14DAS


14. Other pest control methods Removing of

dried mulches

from base of

plant to minimize

white grub

attacks and hand

picking of pests

Cuelure- 4 traps

Removing of dried

mulches from base

of plant to

minimize white

grub attacks and

hand picking of

pests

No Cuelure traps

15. Frequency of Applications Based on AESA

decisions

Based on the farmers’

practice

16. Staking 4 weeks after sowing 4 weeks after sowing

17. Pruning Up to 7th layer of leaves

and branches from the

base of plant after 5

weeks after sowing

Not Done

18. Side dressing by fertilizers Bokashi Mal, Jhol Mal

were applied based on

the AESA decisions

Only FYM is applied once

after 8 weeks of sowing

(based on the farmers

decisions)

19. Other Disease and Pest

Problem treatment

Based on AESA

decisions

Based on Farmers

decisions

7.3 Dissemination through PAR plots:

The PAR plots were used to test and validate some technologies through simple trials in the

field school. The PAR plots were of the size 3m. X 2.4 m. = 7.2 m2 each and no. of pits per plot

were 4 and planting distance was same as the IPM plot planting. Most of the management

practices like land preparation, irrigation, weeding, staking, pruning were similar to IPM plot

practices. Total 30 plots of 7.2 m2 each were selected for PAR.

I. 6 plots were planted with other cucurbit crops; Cucumber, Summer Squash, Sponge

Gourd, Bottle Gourds, Pumpkin, Bitter Gourds (OP) as demonstration plot.

II. Two plots were chosen for Hoeing and non-hoeing trial,


III. Four plots were chosen for varietal trial and the bitter gourds of the varieties; Top to

Top, White Long, Jhalari (Local) and Palee-F1 were used for varietal trial.

IV. Remaining 18 plots were used for PAR, in which, for fertilizer test; 3 treatments as

FYM, NPK, Combination were replicated 3 times and another test for pesticides; 3

treatments as botanical pesticides, bio pesticides and chemical pesticides were also

replicated 3 times.

V. Bitter gourd of the same variety Palee-F1 was chosen for PAR trial.

7.4 Treatments:

1. FYM: 1500 Kg/ropani (29500 Kg /Ha.)

2. NPK: 10:6:3 Kg NPK/ropani (200:120:60 Kg NPK/Ha.)

3. Combination: 14750 Kg FYM/Ha + 100:60:30 Kg NPK/Ha

Note: due to the unavailability of sufficient fund for operation of the field school, we were

unable to conduct pesticide trial and economic analysis was escaped focusing mainly upon

learning only.

7.5 Weekly followed activities

In Each weekly session following usual activities were conducted:

1. Agro-Ecosystem Analysis (AESA): It was the main activity of the field school. The

AESA included:

Field observation and data collection: Observations were made on the soil

conditions, plant health status (leaf color, withering etc.), plant growth and

development, pest and disease attack symptoms, number and types of pests and

their natural enemies, weather conditions, weed incidence and environmental

conditions around the field.

Recording of the observations and graphical representation of insects,

weather and the growth & development of the crop on a newsprint paper

or brown paper: In a shaded area close to the field, participants reported all

their field information in a chart paper. The plant was represented in its latest

state of growth.

Discussion, analysis and interpretation of field information: Comparisons

were made between the number and type of pests, the number of natural enemies

and the growing stage of the plant. Thus, conclusions were drawn and the field

status was build up.


Decision-making: The outcome of the agro-ecosystem analysis process was the

decision-making. The group decided if any pest control measures or other crop

management operations were necessary.

2. Presentation of results and the decisions taken to the entire group: The results of

the field observations and the decision were presented on a plenary session for comment

and improvement.

3. Implementation of previous AESA decisions: Just after field observations and data

collection, participants carried out the decisions made a week ago.

4. Group dynamics exercise/Ice breaker: Group dynamics exercises were to develop

group cohesiveness and problem-solving skills, and encourage collaboration, creativity

and self-discovery among participants.

5. Observation of insect behavior through the “insect zoo” trial: The different trials

set up helped farmers to observe and understand the insects-crop relationships, the

insect pest status and gauge the relative strength of natural controls. 3 insect zoos were

set up.

6. Follow up of PAR plots trials: This activity consisted of data collection from PAR

plots.

7. Special topics: Special topics based on local agricultural problems and conditions

supported the agro-ecosystem analysis by delving more deeply into specific issues

relating to agro-ecology, crop development, IPM principles etc.

8. Evaluation of the day and planning for the following week: Evaluation and

Certification were parts of FFS sessions. Pre and post training tests were organized for

the participants. Farmers or participants with high attendance rates and who lead the

field skill tests were awarded graduation certificates.

8. Other Disseminated Technologies

The technologies disseminated through the Ecofriendly IPM field school were specific.

8.1 Preparations of Eco-friendly IPM Field School

8.1.1 GHARELU BISHADI (घरेल ुबिषादी) or Homemade Pesticide Preparation

1. Cow Urine – 50 ltr.

2. Fresh Sour tasting leaves (Oxalis, Imili, Amaro) – 1 Kg

3. Fresh Bitter tasting leaves (Titepati, Neem, Bakaino, Simali, Asuro) – 1 Kg

4. Hot/ Pirro tasting (Citrus, Tulasi, Bojho, Babari) leaves -1 Kg


5. Tarro tasting (Guava, Mango, Papaya)leaves – 1 Kg

6. Bad Smelling (Gandhe, Asare, Banmara) leaves – 1 Kg

7. Pepper/Chilli – Fresh (1 kg) or powder (200 g.)

8. Onion – 0.5 Kg

9. Garlic – 0.5 kg

10. Ginger – 0.5 kg

11. Timur – 100g.

12. Curd – 1 glass

13. Turmeric – 100 g.

14. JIWATU or EM – 2 ltr.

15. Plastic Tank – 60 ltr. Capacity

Note: Chop the leaves in to pieces and make a mixture of all these materials in the plastic tank. Make it

airtight and open the lead in every 2-3 days in the morning for 1 month. Papaya gum or latex can be used

as sticker material. Use those leaves as pesticide raw materials on which the enemy pests don’t feed on.

General Application Tips:

1. For small plantlets – Bishadi : Water = 1:8

2. For Actively Growing Plants – Bishadi : Water = 1:6

3. For Flowering and Yielding Plants – Bishadi : Water = 1:5

Note: Application should be continued in every 7 days till the problem is minimized below economic

threshold level. The ratio can be adjusted if not effective according to above recommended doses.

8.1.2 JHOL Mal (झोल मल)or Homemade Liquid Fertilizer Preparation

1. Fresh Dung – 1 Kg

2. Mustard Cake – 1 Kg

3. Wood Ash – 1 Kg

4. Curd – 1 glass

5. EM or JIWATU – 1 ltr.


7. Molasses – 1 kg

8. Plastic Tank – 30 ltr. Capacity

Note: Make a mixture of all these materials in the plastic tank and make it airtight and open the lead in

every 2-3 days in the morning for 1 month.


8.1.3 BOKASI Mal (िोकासी मल) or Homemade Bokasi Fertilizer Preparation

1. Bone Meal – 10 Kg.

2. Rice Bran – 10 Kg

3. Oilseed Cake – 10 Kg

4. Molasses – 2 Kg

5. Virgin Soil from Forest – 10 Kg


7. Curd – 1 glass

8. EM or JIWATU – 2 ltr.

9. Well Decomposed Cow dung – 35 Kg or Vermicompost – 50 Kg

Note: Dig a pit of 1 m2 on the ground in shady place and spread the plastic at the bottom so that the

nutrients don’t leach out and make mixture of all these materials and turn over the mixture in every

3-5 days in the morning for one month and cover it with jute sacks from above.

8.1.4 Vermicomposting

Vermicompost can be prepared in home using daily household wastes. For this, daily house

hold wastes can be collected in a place and sorting out the organic wastes and inorganic wastes

can be done easily. After that organic wastes can be collected separately. The suitable strains

of earthworm can be procured and then the pit of 15-20 cm. depth is made in the shady place

above the soil surface. Remove the unwanted pathogenic bushes around the pit. The pit is lined

internally with plastic sheet and holes for excess water leaching can be made in the bottom of

the pit. 2-5cm thick gravel layer can be spread at the bottom of the pit over plastic for cooling

effect. Then pseudo stem of banana is chopped and fresh dung is mixed with it in 1:1

proportion. The mixture is placed in pit in two to three layers and in each layer, earthworms

are spread uniformly. After final layer the pit is covered with water soaked jute sacks. The pit

is provided with thatch roof for shading. The water is sprayed over jute sacks in every 2-3 days

and after 3-5 days the household organic wastes can be added in the pit for earthworm feeding

and converting them in to fertilizer. Water canal is made around the pit to prevent from ants.

8.2 General IPM Knowledge

1. Gandhe Jhar (Ageratum conyzoides) harbors mosaic virus inoculums.

2. Papaya gum or latex can be used as sticker material.

3. Hot pepper/chilli and Papaya latex mixture kills Aphids.

4. Planting of Bojho plant near water resources will deter mosquitoes.

5. Turmeric act as healing agent of wounds in animals and plants.


Each of these preparations are sufficient for the application in 500 m2 crop area. Preparations will be

ready in 25-30 days for field use. The expiry date of each of these preparations is expected to be 6

months from date of preparation but can be used till 3 years.

9. Results

9.1 Quantitative Results:

9.1.1 Capacity Building

Table 2. Summarization of training human resources and beneficiaries

Program Trainees

Ecofriendly

IPM Field

School, IAAS,

Rampur

Campus

Farmers Students Extension

Officers

Local

Inhabitants

(LI)

Total

Men Women Male Female Male Female Occasional

Presence

2 3 26 10 2 0 43 ±

LI

Total 5 36 2 43 ± LI

Note: Presence of Local Inhabitants (LI) was not regular but often. Of the total trainees (43)

only 13 (30.23 %) women attended the field school (Table 2). Also, in the nearby area farmers

have cultivated Bitter Gourds and other cucurbits but the products from the field school were

more preferred by the consumers rather than the products of the farmer’s field in local area.

It’s because they preferred chemical free products rather than the chemically produced products

and it is very good news that farmers are aware about the health aspects of organic and

inorganic products. We found, among the farmers, that women and men both were involved in

the farming as well.

9.1.2 Technical Results

In this field school, IPM practice was based on the use of more botanical pesticides and organic

fertilizers with least use of chemical fertilizers too. The technologies proposed to the

participants and validated through participatory action research (PAR) trials concerned new

varieties, fertilization, botanical pesticides, chemical pesticides application and timings etc.

9.1.2.1 IPM and FP Plots Results

A. Farmers’ Plots (FP):


Total number of Harvests = 11

Total No. of sub-plots = 5

Total Area of IPM Plots = 250 m2

Area of each sub-plots = 50 m2

Total Yield of the Farmers’ Plot = 97.10 Kg. / 250 m2

Average Bitter Gourds Harvested per harvest = 8.83 Kg / Harvest /250 m2

Average Bitter Gourds Yield per sub- plot = 19.42 Kg. / 50 m2

B. IPM Plots (IP):

Total number of Harvests = 11

Total No. of sub-plots = 5

Total Area of IPM Plots = 250 m2

Area of each sun-plots = 50 m2

Total Yield of the IPM Plot = 104.27 Kg. / 250 m2

Average Bitter Gourds Harvested per harvest = 9.48 Kg./ Harvest /250 m2

Average Bitter Gourds Yield per sub-plot = 20.854 Kg. / 50 m2

9.1.2.2 PAR Plots results

The objective of participatory action research (PAR) in this farmers’-students’- field school, is

to provide the participants with technical skills to test new technologies or indigenous

knowledge (IK) and also test those technologies which are not included in the IPM practices.

Any useful new knowledge or technology can be quickly and effectively tested, adapted,

transformed and integrated into viable practices within actual farming systems by

farmers/participants themselves.

9.1.2.2.1 Variety Trials

Plot Sizes: 7.2 m2 each

Table 3: Bitter gourd Yield/Plot (Average) recorded for each variety

Varieties Yield (Grams in 6 Harvests) Observation

Top to Top 1000


White Long 700

Jhalari 1350

Palee-F1 2500

9.1.2.2.2 Nutrient Management Trial

Plot Size: 7.2 m2, No. of Treatments = 4 and no. of Replications = 3

Table 4: Bitter gourd Yield/Plot (Average) recorded for each nutrient management

Treatments Yield (Grams in 6 Harvests) Observation

Combination 3600.00

FYM 1350.00

NPK 1166.67

Control 1010.00

9.2 Qualitative results

One of the main outputs of farmer field school training is the non-quantifiable knowledge.Farmers

who have undergone FFS,developed a number of skills which allow them to get the rightability and

the solution for problems. From this training, farmers and students both got understanding of how

the ecology of their fields operate, and by developing their capacity to manage the complex

processes occurring, the facilitator, through FFS, empower the farmer for farming decision-making

and by this way, replace the insecurity with self-confidence. Field schools develop solidarity (even

after the school), self-discovery, group cohesiveness and critical skills within farmers and participant

students. Throughout the training, participants practice some exercises to build group trust and

coherence. After the training, participants can freely identify bitter gourd and differentiate between

insect pests and natural enemies. Pre and post “ballot box” tests were conducted to evaluate the

technical knowledge of participants before and after training respectively.

10. Students’-Farmers’ Day

10.1 Inauguration of Ecofriendly IPM Field School

Inauguration of the Ecofriendly IPM Field School, Rampur Campus was done on Chaitra 29th,

2070 (12 April 2014) in the Pathology Experimental Field. The inauguration program in that

special day was hosted by Ms. Anupama Sharma and formal inauguration was on the

presidency of Mr. Dipendra Kumar Ayer (Coordinator of IPM field school and B.Sc.Ag.

Student) and graced by Mr. Shyam Sundar Panta (Campus Chief, IAAS, Rampur Campus),


Mr. Lekhnath Adhikari (Senior Plant Protection Training Officer, Directorate of Agricultural

Training, DOA, Nepal), Mr. Basudev Sapkota (Farmers’ Facilitator), senior officers from

provincial agriculture office, Local Development Office (LDO) with their staffs, IPM District

Farmers Association, Chitwan staffs, members of Local IPM farmers groups and small holder

farmers form nearby villages and also the group of B.Sc. Ag. Students (IPM-SFFS Group). The

program was formally completed after planting the seeds of main crop (bitter gourd) in

triangular fashion and irrigation with the help of rose cane in the pit where seeds were planted.

10.2 Closing Ceremony of Ecofriendly IPM Field School

Date of Ceremony and Exhibition: 16th August, 2014 (31stShrawan 2071)

Organizer: IPM-(S) FFS Group, IAAS, Rampur Campus

Venue of the Exhibition: New Auditorium Hall, IAAS, Rampur Campus

Theme of the Exhibition: “Learning by Doing, Learning by Experience”

Students’-Farmers’ Day was a special day for all the Eco-friendly IPM Field School

participants and is an event accommodated by IPM-(S) FFS Group and organized in

collaborations with IAAS, AFU, District IPM Union and DADO. The field day attracted many

participants from the nearby farmers and reporters of Chitwan district. As shown in the

pictures, attendance at the program was the best with the presence of several IPM farmer

groups, extension workers and curious members who were eager to learn new technologies

applied and disseminated in the field school. About 150 persons were present on that day.

10.2.1 Technologies overviewed

ii. Crops Section

Staking for bitter gourds and other cucurbits, Use of waste materials for agricultural purpose,

Bokashi Mal preparation, Jhol mal preparation, Gharelu Bishadi preparation, Improved

Gothemal preparation, Vermicompost preparation, Disease and pest management practices etc.

iii. Presentation Section

AESA making and analysis, Activities and hardworking by both students and farmers during

field school.

10.2.2 Guest of Honour

In the closing ceremony, Director of Department of Agriculture (DOA), Ministry of Agriculture

Development (MOAD), Nepal, Dr. Yubakdhoj G.C. ([email protected]) participated including the

mailto:[email protected]


other district level agricultural officers, Local Development Office (LDO) with their staffs, IPM District

Farmers Association, Chitwan staffs. Members of Local IPM farmers groups and small holder farmers

from nearby villages also attended the field day.

10.2.3 IPM-(S) FFS Group

IPM-(S) FFS Group organized the occasion completely. One of the member of IPM Field School (Mr.

Rabin Giri) hosted the program and other trainees displayed and demonstrated the attendees to farmers

plot (FP) and IPM plots (IP) and PAR plots which were intended to serve their needs in the rural areas.

The program was formally inaugurated by lighting the 4 candles representing the four principles of IPM.

Thereafter all the attendees including guest of honor were led to the Field School Plots to demonstrate

what had been done during field school. After returning back to the hall, the movie prepared by the group

was displayed which summarized all the activities involved during this season long IPM field school.

They fully appreciated the students’ and farmers’ made technologies to promote extension services which

is limited as the over-stretched extension service providers finds it hard to adequately serve wide spread

clients. A day long field day provided an opportunity for interactions, discussions and practical exposure

to DADO, MOAD, IAAS, AFU and other farmers groups. Need for development of Interactive voice

mail services and programs like such was noted by the guest of honors and other senior agriculturists.

11. Conclusion and Perspective

Famers Field School is not only to transfer technologies (extension approach) but also useful to

make farmers experts in their own fields. It takes into account all aspects of bittergourd production

management (from seed selection to harvesting techniques and marketing aspects) and thereby make

farmers better and “stronger”. What is learned is a process, not pieces of information. This allows

farmers to face new challenges and the ever-changing dynamics of their fields. At the field school,

were farmers and participant students who observed the field, gathered data, discussed in groups,

analysed experiment results and make decisions about field management. The training participants

has increased their knowledge and practices on integrated mangement practices of economically

important pests. Following this, farmer field school is the tool needed by our farmers. But our

objective was to train the maximum farmers and students combinely in coordination through the

training provided by skilled trainers in this field school. This capacity building training need a

substantial investment which can not be covered by students’ tiffin expense saving fund alone. Once

the capacity building training is put in place, farmer training can be expanded rapidly to cover more

regions and more farmers. Our perspective is a challenge which can not be taken up without

assistance from our financial partners too. The field school tried to share the knowlegde and


practices of crop managemet practices and it was focused on learing by doing rather than seeing is

believing.

12. Recommendation

After the completition of this field school, we observed that the management cost of the IPM practice

is somewhat higher in initial stages but it will be less as compared to the chemical methods on the

long run. The pest problem of bitter gourds can be minimized to a economic level through the IPM

techniques without any loss to the human health and environment. So farmers can apply above

mentioned IPM techniques for sustainable bitter gourd cultivation.

Thank You !!!


13. Major Pest of Bitter Gourd

Fig: Bitter Gourd Pest Problem

Fruit Fly Damage


14. Snapshots of Eco-friendly IPM Field School

Field Day Field Day

Regular Class AESA Preparation

It’s fun time Field Visit by Specialists


IPM Tour IPM Tour

Mr. Lekhnath Adhikari, IPM Facilitator



15. References

Aggrey, O.A. 2011. Report of the Farmers Field day at Wambugu ATC, NAFIS Section

education methods. Global IPM Facility Secretariat.

Davis, K., E. Nkonya, E. Kato, D. A. Mekonnen, M. Odendo, R. Miiro and J. Nkuba. 2010. Impact of

farmer field schools on agricultural productivity and poverty in East Africa. IFPRI.

Gbaguidi, B. 2001. Farmer Field School: Activities Report 2000-2001, Draft. PRONAF Project, Africa

Bishwakarma, B.K., B.K. Dhital, R. Bhandari, Y.D. G.C., R.B. Paneru, B. R. Khadge. 2012.

Major Insect Pest and their Management in Vegetable Crops; A Training Manual,

HELVETAS, Nepal.

http://celkau.in/Crops/Vegetables/Bittergourd/bittergourd.aspx (date of download: 21st Nov. 2014)

Kevin, Gallagher. Farmers Field Schools (FFS) : A group extension process based on Adult non-formal

Khisa, G. 2004. Farmers Field School. Methodology, Training Of of Trainers Manual, First Edition.

Mweri, B. A. M., C.D.A. Mombasaand, K. S. Godrick. 2001. Report of the training of trainers course on

farmers field school methodology for Kari’s soil management and legume research network

project.2001.Kenya agricultural research institute, Nairobi, Kenya.

Stathers, T. 2005. Promotion of of Sustainable Sweet potato Production and Post-Harvest Management

Through Farmer Field Schools In and Post-Harvest Management through Farmer Field Schools

in East Africa, Final Technical Report.

The IPM Training Program under the Department of the Non-Formal Education. 2000. Thai Education

Foundation, The Ministry of Education

Vegetable Farming Technology. 2012. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Government of Nepal

http://celkau.in/Crops/Vegetables/Bittergourd/bittergourd.aspx

Documents

Activity Report of Ecofriendly IPM Field School_Rampur Campus