Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
ANALYSIS OF FARMER FIELD SCHOOLEFFECT ON
AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTIVITY IN TWO DISTRICTS OF KHYBER
PAKHTUNKHWA-
PAKISTAN
A dissertation submitted to The University of Agriculture, Peshawar in Partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN AGRICULTURE (AGRICULTURAL
EXTENSION EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION)
BY
MAHMOOD IQBAL
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION
EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION,
FACULTY OF RURAL SOCIAL SCIENCES
THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE,
PESHAWAR- PAKISTAN JANUARY,
2014
2
ANALYSIS OF FARMER FIELD SCHOOLEFFECT ON
AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTIVITY IN TWO DISTRICTS OF KHYBER
PAKHTUNKHWAPAKISTAN
A dissertation submitted to The University of Agriculture, Peshawar in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN AGRICULTURE (AGRICULTURAL
EXTENSION EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION) BY
MAHMOOD IQBAL
Approved by
______________________
Prof. Dr. Khalid Nawab
Chairman Supervisory
committee
______________________
Dr. Urooba Pervaiz
Member (Major Field of
Study)
______________________
Dr. Muhammad Arif
Member (Minor Field of
Study)
______________________
Prof. Dr. Khalid Nawab
Chairman and Convener
Board of Studies
______________________
Prof. Dr. Noor P. Khan
Dean, Faculty of Rural Social
Sciences
______________________
Prof. Dr. Farhatullah
Director Advanced Studies
and Research
3
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION
EDUCATION
AND COMMUNICATION,
FACULTY OF RURAL SOCIAL SCIENCES
THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE,
PESHAWAR- PAKISTAN JANUARY,
2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter No. Title Page No.
List of Table ............................................................................................ i
List of Figures ......................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements................................................................................. iv
Abstract ................................................................................................... v
I INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
1.1 Geography of the study area .........................................................................1
1.2 Extension technique ......................................................................................1
1.3 Farmer Field School (FFS) …………………………. ..................................2
1.3.1 Origin and historical background …………………… ..................................2
1.3.2 Farmer Field School Globally……………………….. ..................................3
1.3.3 History of FFS in Pakistan…………………………… .................................4
1.3.4 Basic components of FFS……………………………. .................................4
1.3.5 Farmer Field School: A group extension approach….. .................................5
1.3.6 Concepts and Principles of FFS……………………… .................................6
1.4 Vegetables in Pakistan ...................................................................................7
1.4.1 Bitter gourd ....................................................................................................7
1.4.2 Tomato ...........................................................................................................7
1.5 Research Area……………………………………….. ..................................8
4
1.5.1 District Charsadda
..........................................................................................8
1.5.2 District
Malakand...........................................................................................9
1.6 Justification of the study……………………………. ...................................9
1.7 Importance of the study .................................................................................10
1.8 Objectives of the study………………………………...................................11
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE....................................................... 12 III
MATERIAL AND METHODS............................................ ..................
19
3.1 Universe of the Study.....................................................................................19
3.2 Selection of Sample .......................................................................................19
3.2.1 Selection of Agro-Ecological Zone
...............................................................20
3.2.2 Selection of districts ………………………………..
....................................20
3.2.3 Selection of tehsils…………………………………..
...................................21
3.2.4 Selection of Union Councils………………………...
...................................21
3.2.5 Selection of
villages/FFSs…………………………......................................21
3.3 Selection of Respondents………………………. ..........................................21
3.4 Collection of Data………………………………… ......................................21
3.4.1 Interview schedule
development…………………........................................22
3.4.2 Interview procedure…………………………………
....................................22 3.5 Data
analysis……………………………………….. ....................................22
IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION …………………………… ............... 25
4.1 Age …………………………………………………………
........................25
4.2. Education level
……………………………………………..........................25
4.3 Household size……………………………………………… .......................31
5
4.4 Farming experience………………………………………... .........................33
4.5 Size/status of land holding ………………………………… ........................35
4.6 Irrigation status of land…………………………………….. ........................36
4.7 Cropping pattern …………………………………………… .......................38
4.8. Acquaintance with extension
personnel……………………........................39
4.9 Farmer’s visit to extension personnel/facilitator’s office…… ......................42
4.10 Hierarchy of extension personnel visits…………………….. .......................45
4.11 Extension personnel’s field visit……………………………. .......................47
4.12 Frequency of extension personnel field visit before and after FFS ...............49
4.13 Source of knowledge/information about FFS……………….. ......................51
4.14 Extension methods used for information dissemination before FFS .............53
4.15 Extension approach used by extension personnel other than FFS .................56
4.16 Venue of contact with field assistants and agriculture officers before FFS ..58
4.17 Activities being implemented by Extension personnel in FFS ......................60
4.18 Effectiveness of present extension services and farmer field
school activities ..............................................................................................62
4.19 Adoption and implementation of FFS activities in field ................................64
4.20 Land preparation ............................................................................................66
4.21 Seed quantity (gms/acre) and cost (Rs) of bitter gourd and tomato ..............67
4.22 Cropping practices .........................................................................................68
4.23 Management and cost of nutrients .................................................................69
4.24 Crop protection practices for insect pest ........................................................70
4.25 Crop protection practices (Rs) for diseases control .......................................73
4.26 Total cost of bitter gourd and tomato (Rs) before and after Farmer
Field School ...................................................................................................77
4.27 Relationship among education level and yield of respondents before
and after FFS (Bitter gourd) ...........................................................................78
4.28 Relationship among education level and yield of respondents before
6
And after FFS (Tomato).................................................................................79
4.29 Relationship among farming experience and yield before and after FFS
(Bitter gourd)
.................................................................................................80
4.30 Relationship among farming experience and income before and after
FFS (Bitter gourd) ..........................................................................................81
4.31 Relationship among farming experience and yield before and after FFS
(tomato)
..........................................................................................................82
4.32 Relationship among farming experience and income before and after FFS .
(tomato) ……………….. ...............................................................................82
4.33 Relationship among cropping pattern and adoption of respondents after .
FFS (Bitter gourd) .........................................................................................83
4.34 Relationship among cropping pattern and adoption of respondents after FFS
(Tomato) ........................................................................................................84
4.35 Regression analysis for the effect of educational level on the yield of
bitter gourd before and after Farmer Field School (FFS) ..............................85
4.36 Regression analysis for the effect of educational level on the yield of tomato
before and after the Farmer Field School (FFS) ............................................86
4.37 Yield of the crops ...........................................................................................87
4.38 Income of the farmers
....................................................................................88
V Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................... 89
5.1 Summary ........................................................................................................89
5.2 Conclusions ....................................................................................................96
5.3 Recommendations
..........................................................................................98
Literature Cited .............................................................................
100
Appendix-A Interview Schedule .................................................. 110
Appendix-B Map of Pakistan ....................................................... 119
7
Appendix- C Map of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa .......................... 120
Appendix- D Map of District Charsadda ..................................... 121
Appendix- E Map of District Malakand ................................ 122
Appendix- F Abbreviation .....................................................
123
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page No.
3.1 Agro-Ecological Zones of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa based on altitude
variation 20
4.1 Distribution of the respondents according to their Age 27
4.2 Distribution of the respondents regarding their educational level 30
4.3 Respondents stating their household size 32
4.4 Distribution of respondents regarding their farming experience 34
4.5 Area wise distribution of the respondents regarding land holding size 36
4.6 Irrigation status of land 37
4.7 Distribution of respondents regarding number of crops grown 39
4.8 Distribution of respondents stating acquaintance and venue
of contact with extension personnel/facilitator before FFS 41
4.9 Distribution of respondents regarding frequency of their visits to and
reasons for not visiting local extension personnel office for
the solution of the problems after FFS 44
4.10 Distribution of respondents regarding whom they meet in the
office of Agriculture extension 46
4.11 Distribution of respondents regarding extension personnel
visit to their field 48
4.12 Distribution of respondents regarding extension personnel
visit to farmer field 50
4.13 Distribution of respondents regarding source of information about FFS 52
4.14 Distribution of respondents regarding extension methods used
for information dissemination before FFS 55
4.15 Extension approaches used by extension personnel other than FFS 57
4.16 Venue of contact with field assistant and agriculture officer before FFS 59
8
4.17 Activities being implemented by extension personnel in FFS 61 4.18
Distribution of respondents regarding effectiveness of present
extension services and farmer field school activities 63
4.19 Distribution of respondents regarding adoption and implementation
of FFS activities in field in future 65
4.20 Distribution of respondents regarding land preparation practices 67
4.21 Seed quantity and cost of bitter gourd and tomato 68
4.22 Cropping practices being conducted in the study area 69
4.23 Cost of nutrients 70
4.24 Cost of crop protection on insect pest 73
4.25 Cost of crop protection from diseases 77
4.26 Total cost of bitter gourd and tomato before and after FFS 78
4.27 Association among education level and yield of respondents
after FFS (Bitter gourd) 79
4.28 Association among education level and yield after FFS (Tomato kg/acre) 80
4.29 Relationship among farming experience and yield after FFS
(Bitter gourd kg/acre) 81
4.30 Relationship among farming experience and income after FFS
(Bitter gourd Rs/acre) 81
4.31 Relationship among farming experience and yield after FFS
(tomato kg/acre) 82
4.32 Relationship among farming experience and income after
FFS (tomato) 83
4.33 Association among cropping pattern and adoption of FFS (Bitter gourd) 84
4.34 Association among cropping pattern and adoption of FFS (Tomato) 84
4.35a Regression analysis for the effect of educational level on the yield
of bitter gourd before Farmer Field School (FFS) 85
4.35 b Regression analysis for the effect of educational level on the yield
of bitter gourd after Farmer Field School (FFS) 86
4.36a Regression analysis for the effect of educational level on the yield
of tomato before Farmer Field School (FFS) 87
4.36b Regression analysis for the effect of educational level on the yield
of tomato after Farmer Field School (FFS) 87
4.37 Yield of the crops (paired t-test value/result) 88
4.38 Income of the farmers 88
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures No. Title Page No.
4.1 Age of the respondents 28
4.2 Educational levels of the respondents 31
9
4.3 Respondents household size 32
4.4 Farming Experience of the respondents 33
4.5 Knowledge or acquaintance with extension personnel 42
4.6 Extension personnel met within the office of Agriculture extension 47
4.7 Visit of extension personnel to the Farmer’s Field 49
4.8 Frequency of extension personnel field visit 51
4.9 Source of knowledge about FFS 53
4.10 Extension methods used for information dissemination before FFS 55
4.11 Extension approach used by extension personnel other than FFS 58
4.12 Venue of contact with extension personnel before FFS 60
4.13 Level of effectiveness of present extension services and
farmer field school activities 64
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS All praises to Almighty Allah, the most merciful and the most compassionate and His Holy
Prophet " Muhammad" (Peace Be Upon Him) the most perfect and exalted one among and of ever
born on the surface of earth, Who is forever torch of guidance and knowledge for humanity.
The work presented in this study was accomplished under the inspiring guidance, generous
assistance, constructive criticism and enlightened supervision of Prof. Dr. Khalid Nawab,
Chairman Department of Agricultural Extension Education and Communication, The University
of Agriculture, Peshawar. His efforts towards the inculcation of the spirit of constant work and
the maintenance of professional integrity besides other valuable words of advice will always serve
as beacon of light throughout the course of my life. I take this humblest opportunity to express
my deepest sense of gratitude and thankfulness to him.
I owe a debt of immense gratitude to Prof. Dr. Satoshi Tachibana, Prof. Dr. Hisato Shuto
and Dr. Matsushita Shusuke, Forest Resource Economics, Doctoral Program in Appropriate
Technology and Science for Sustainable Development. Graduate School of Life And
Environmental Sciences University of Tsukuba Japan, for their cooperation and valuable
suggestions during the study in Japan under International Research Support Initiative Program
(IRSIP) Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan. I am really thankful to the Higher
Education Commission (HEC) for providing indigenous scholarship to complete this study.
Sincerest thanks are also extended to Prof. Dr. Muhammad Akram (Rtd), Prof. Dr.
Iftikhar Ahmad, Dr. Ayesha Khan, Dr. Urooba Pervaiz Assistant Professors, Prof. Dr.
Muhammad Zafarullah Khan and Prof. Dr. Muhammad Idrees Department of Agricultural
Extension Education and Communication, Dr. Muhammad Arif,
Associate Professor Department of Agronomy, Dr. Yousaf Hayat, Chairman Department of
Maths, Stat and Computer Science, The University of Agriculture, Peshawar, Dr. Shahid Ali
Assistant Professor University of Swat for their constructive criticism and suggestions during the
study.
My vital tributes with deepest senses of gratification are due to my father, Haji Abdul
Jalil and brothers, Haji Mahmood Ullah and Subhan Ullah for their moral encouragement,
financial support and prayers for my success in life.
My thanks and appreciations also go for Dr. Haji Muhammad, District Director
Agriculture, District Malakand and Mr. Abdul Nasir Malik, Agriculture Officer, District
Charsadda, for their assistance in data collection from selected districts.
10
I am greatly thankful to my wife who extended her full cooperation and showed patience
for the completion of this manuscript, and I also remember the sweet and innocent prayers of my
Sons Aaban Mahmoodand Zalan Mahmood, nieces and nephews for the early completion of my
study.
Last but not least, I am again thankful to all whom I have mentioned and whom I have not
mentioned for helping me to complete this study. May Allah bless all these people with long
happy and peaceful lives.
Mahmood Iqbal
ANALYSIS OF FARMER FIELD SCHOOLEFFECT ON
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN TWO DISTRICTS OF
KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA-PAKISTAN
Mahmood Iqbal and Khalid Nawab
Department of Agricultural Extension Education and Communication, The University of Agriculture, Peshawar- Pakistan.
ABSTRACT
Farmer Field School (FFS) always aims to facilitate farmers about field ecology and integrated
crop management. The study was conducted in 2012-13 to analyze the activities of Farmer Field
School approach, interaction of extension personnel/facilitators with farmers and adoption ratio
of FFS approach. It also investigates the different stages of crops and their associated management
practices and to determine increase in per acre yield of the crop and profit maximization margin
per acre. A study of bitter gourd crop was conducted in ten villages of district Charsadda and the
study of tomato crop was conducted in ten villages of district Malakand. Fifteen farmers were
selected randomly from each village on the basis of 60% of FFS population and making sample
size of 300. Both primary and secondary data were collected from farmers and department of
agricultural extension respectively. Structured interview schedule was developed and each farmer
was interviewed personally. The study was based on comparison of cost, yield and income of
bitter gourd and tomato before and after FFS. Paired t-test was conducted using SPSS for analysis.
Result of the study show that agricultural extension department has brought a positive change in
the attitude of farmers through FFS approach. About 69% of the respondents were growing bitter
gourd in Charsadda between the ages of 31-50 years, Majority 77% of respondents was literate
and 23% were illiterate. Average land holding size was 9.89 acres; Cost of fertilizer, crop
protection from insect pest and crop protection from diseases was reduced by Rs. 2264.17, Rs.
3379.97and Rs. 3181.19 respectively. The cost of seed and cost of farm yard manure was
increased by Rs.1923.07 and Rs. 1204.66 respectively while bitter gourd yield was increased by
988 Kg/acre from 17384.60 to 18372.60. In district Malakand66% of the respondents were
between the age group of 31-50 years, 58% of respondents were literate while 42.0% were
illiterate. Cost of seed, crop protection from insect pest and crop protection from diseases was
reduced by Rs. 210.67, Rs. 2592.10 and Rs. 3127.98 respectively. The cost of fertilizers and cost
of farm yard manure was increased by Rs.1548.87 and Rs. 1151.33 respectively, while tomato
yield was increased by 1585.03 kg/acre from 7663.87 to 9248.90 kg/acre. It is concluded that
empirical activities of FFS approach is not only beneficial and useful but enhanced the agricultural
productivity. Interaction of extension agents with farmers increased awareness and propagated
11
new technologies related to tomato and bitter gourd resultantly improved the socio-economic
conditions of farmers. It is recommended that extension department should extend developmental
activities through participatory FFS approach. Trainings, seminars and refresher courses should
be arranged for both FFS facilitators and farmers.
I. INTRODUCTION
Agriculture is central to economic growth and development in Pakistan. Being the
dominant sector, it contributes 21.4% to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), employs 45%
of the country’s labor force and contributes to the growth of other sectors of the economy.
The healthy expansion in agriculture stimulates domestic demand for industrial goods
and other services. It also supplies raw material to agro-based industries notably cotton
textile industry which is the largest sub-sector of manufacturing sector. The government
under the paradigm of new growth strategy envisioned to enhance growth in agriculture
sector by facilitating agricultural productivity, sustainable environment, increasing
competitiveness in agriculture marketing and trade by providing friendly climate for
more investment in the sector (GoP, 2013).
1.1 Geography of the study area
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa formerly known as North West Frontier Province (NWFP) is one
of the four provinces of Pakistan, In April 2010, the name of North West Frontier
Province was changed to “Khyber Pakhtunkhwa” by the constitution act, 2010. This
resolution was passed by National Assembly and the Senate of Pakistan, and received
the consent of the President of Pakistan on April 19, 2010 to become aspect of the
constitution of Pakistan (www.gateway to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa).
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa borders Afghanistan to the north-west, Gilgit Baltistan to the
north-east, Azad Jammu & Kashmir to the eastern, the Federally Administered Tribal
12
Area (FATA) to the west and south, Baluchistan to the southern and Punjab and the
Islamabad capital territory to the south-east (Appendix-C).
1.2 Extension techniques
Extension techniques are some of the significant method for treating the modern results
of research in agriculture, techniques to improve agriculture manufacturing in particular
and uplift the non-urban population in general. These techniques are used by extension
personnel for bringing desirable changes of farmers’ behavior to assemble the best
learning situations and to generate a scenario in which interaction and communication
can take place between farmers and extension personnel. Extension techniques are
effective means of communication to offer knowledge and skills, so that farmers can
hear, see, and do the things communicated by extension personnel. In addition, extension
techniques arouse mature youth men and women for action.
Extension approach refers to the principle for an organization, which informs, stimulates
and guides such aspects of the organizations its structure, mission, vision, leadership, its
programs, strategies, its resources and linkages. Extension approach influences the
choice of the target audience, the resources required and its allocation, their
methodologies employed, and the results and impact of the extension efforts. Extension
approaches are the basic planning philosophy that is being adopted by an agricultural
extension organization. This helps extensionists to understand the fundamentals, concept
and functional methods of extension adopted to fulfill its aims, especially in the planning
phase. Many extension approaches in the past have been introduced like Village
Agricultural and Industrial Development (V-AID) Program, The Integrated Rural
Development Program (IRDP), Training and Visits (T&V), Public
Sector Extension Approach (PSEA), Participatory Extension Approach (PEA) and
Community Specialized Extension Approach (CSEA), conventional and participatory
etc. Some of these approaches were implemented in the field through Farmer Field
School (FAO, 2000).
1.3 Farmer Field School (FFS)
A Farmer Field School (FFS) is a season-long training activity that occurs in the field. It
covers all the different developing stages of the crops and their relevant
13
management/control techniques. The training procedure is always learner-centered,
participatory and relying on an experiential studying technique (FAO, 2000).
1.3.1 Origin and historical background
The FFS technique was designed by FAO project in south east Asia as a way for small
scale rice farmers, to examine and understand for themselves the abilities needed for, and
benefits to be obtained from, implementing on techniques in their paddy field.
The phrase “Farmer Field School” comes from the Indonesian Sekolah Lampangan
significance simply “field school”. The first farmer field school was established in 1989
in Central Java during the pilot phase of the FAO-assisted National IPM Program. This
Program was influenced by the harmful insect outbreaks of brown plant hoppers
(Nilaparvata lugens) that are estimated to have in 1986 damaged 20,000 hectares of rice
in Java alone. The Government of Indonesia’s response was to launch an urgent training
venture aimed at offering 120,000 farmers with field training in IPM, targeted mainly on
recording on reducing the use of the pesticides that were ruining the organic insect
predators of the brown plant hopper. The details of rice IPM were refined in 1986 and
1987 and a core program for training of farmers was designed in 1988 when the National
IPM Program was launched. It was based on strengthening them through education and
learning to handle their own on-farm decisions, using experiential learning techniques
designed for non-formal adult education and learning purposes. Since then, the technique
has been duplicated in a wide range of settings beyond IPM. The FARM Program
(FAO/UNDP), for example, has sought to adopt the FFS to deal with problems relevant
to integrated Soil Fertility Management in the Philippines, Vietnam and China. The
IFAD/FAO programme in East Africa has tailored the technique for Integrated
Production and Pest Management (IPPM) and poultry production (FAO, 2000).
1.3.2 Farmer Field School Globally
Over the years, the FFS approach has successfully been tailored from a monocrop rice
production program in Southeast Asia to the complex and diverse smallholder agriculture
approach in Africa. The approach was introduced to East Africa in 1995 and by mid-
2009 more than 7,000 FFSs has been implemented in Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania under
different situations. These FFSs targeted subjects such as Integrated Production and Pest
Management (IPPM), land and water control, disease control, selfreliance of refugee
14
fields, distribution of new crop varieties and, recently rehabilitation of agriculture
livelihoods among resettling fields in a post-emergency context, which has required a
number of innovations. The program in East Africa adopted a flexible and iterative
implementation strategy with modifications to ensure that Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) is treated as an integral concept of production and not a stand-alone and highly-
technical subject, as is often the case. As a result, the concept of Integrated Production
and Pest Management (IPPM), a broader and more holistic approach which could
effectively be used to accommodate any production-related issues beyond pest
management (FAO, 2000).
1.3.3 History of FFS in Pakistan
FFS techniques evolved from the idea that optimal learning derives from experience in
the case of farmers, from observation in the area. The FFS combines the domains of
ecology and non-formal education and learning to give farmers the opportunity to
comprehend about their crops and to learn from each other. Learning objectives of FFS
are; i) grow healthy crops, ii) conduct regular field observation, iii) conserve natural
enemies of pests, iv) farmers understand ecology and become experts in their own field.
The FFS based IPM technique was institutionalized in Pakistan in 2001(PHP, 2001).
1.3.4 Basic components of FFS
The basic elements of an FFS for Integrated Pest Management include:
• The FFS consists of a group of 20 to 25 farmers.
• It is field-based and lasts for at least one cropping season (from seeding to
harvest).
• The FFS farmers have regularly (weekly) meetings during the cropping season.
• In the FFS, farmers conduct a study comparing IPM strategy with common
farmers’ practice. They have an IPM plot and a Farmers’ Practice (FP) plot.
• It also contains other field studies, depending on local field problems.
15
• The FFS could also contains special subjects that deal with particular problems
chosen by the farmer.
• Each meeting contains at least an agro-ecosystem analysis performed in the field
(AESA) ending with a discussion of crop management decisions.
• FFS educational techniques are experiential, participatory, learner-centered, and
based on non-formal education.
• The FFS team is guided by at least one facilitator offering experiential studying
opportunities, rather than delivering top-down instruction.
1.3.5 Farmer Field School: A group extension approach
FFS often consists of group of individuals with a common interest, believe in “how and
why” of a particular topic. The subjects covered can vary considerably from soil health,
optimum tillage operations, right variety selection, rationalizing agro-chemicals, IPM
and cooperative marketing.
In the past several decades, FFS technique is being used as an agricultural extension
technique in many developing countries in Asia and Africa. Experiences with IPM-FFS
in Asia have been documented and used to promote and expand FFS to other nations and
other disciplines. The FFS is a non-formal training programme for chosen farmers within
a local area, usually a village. The FFS technique was designed initially as a way to
introduce knowledge and information on IPM to irrigated rice farmers in Asia,
particularly in the Indonesia and Philippines (Quizon et al, 2001).
More recently, there has been a growing interest among researchers to pilot FFS approach
on the principles and practices of INM to address the declining soil fertility problems in
Africa. Although originally developed for IPM purposes, the FFS provides an alternative
approach to the traditional extension and research method in which farmers are seen as
passive recipients of externally formulated extension messages that are demonstrated to
farmers by development agents (FAO, 2000).
FFS addresses the weaknesses in agriculture research and extension linkages and low
rating of farmers’ knowledge (Onduru, et al, 2002). The FFS is people centered learning
16
methodology whereby farmers can learn about and examine for themselves the
alternative soil and nutrient management practices to attain sustainable agricultural
productivity.
Preliminary experience from the pilot farmer field schools for INM conducted in Asia
(Philippines, Thailand and China) have come up with encouraging outcomes.
Conducting FFS is found to be important to enable farmers to comprehend the concepts
and techniques of INM, which is a vital aspect of a long-term strategy of sustainable
agricultural productivity (Ban and Samanta, 2006).
The application of FFS approach to INM is meant to improve farmers’ analytical and
experimental abilities in finding sustainable solutions to the soil fertility problems (Elias,
2012). In order to attain sustainability and productivity goals, it is necessary to motivate
self-discovery actions to develop technologies that suited to local conditions by farmers
to deal with agricultural production problems, particularly in mitigating the alarming
rates of decreasing soil fertility. Technological choices must depend on indigenous
knowledge and on local resources with sound ecological principles integrating social,
cultural and economic dimensions to avoid dependency on external inputs.
1.3.6 Concepts and Principles of FFS
FFS is described as a platform and “School without walls” for enhancing making
decisions potential of farmers and stimulating local innovations for sustainable
agriculture. The overall objectives of FFS are to bring farmers together to carry out
combined and collaborative query with the purpose of initiating community action and
solving community problems (Onduru et al, 2002). The foundation of FFS method is
“farmers first” viewpoint, which is in direct contrast to the transfer of technology
approach. “Farmers first” concept is important to motivate farmers to learn, experiment,
innovate and make their own decisions (Endalew, 2009).
Main principles of FFS procedure are increasing healthy crop, observe fields regularly,
conserve natural enemies of crop pest and farmers understand ecology and become
professionals in their own field. FFS is a means for offering farmers with a studying
atmosphere so that they can accomplish production goals (Onduru et al, 2002). It is a
process and not a goal in itself.
17
• Farmers are expert and they learn-by-doing
• The field is the learning place or the school
• Extension workers are facilitators but not teachers
• Scientists perform work with rather than lecturer to farmers
• Curriculum is interdisciplinary
• Training follows seasonal calendar
• Learning materials are learner generated
1.4 Vegetables in Pakistan
A large variety of vegetables are cultivated in Pakistan. More than 36 species are grown
and consumed as summer and winter vegetables. The most commonly grown fresh
vegetables consist of potato, onion, tomato, chili, gourds, and many more. Bitter gourd
is important from the financial and nutritional perspective. There is very little study
conducted on its production cost, mode of input use, farm management practices,
profitability and production in Pakistan and elsewhere in the world (Ahmad and Baksh,
2004).
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province has an agrarian economic system and more than 80% of
the rural people depend for their survival on agriculture and out of which 70% are directly
or indirectly engaged in agriculture. Main crops sown in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are rice,
maize, sugarcane, pulses and horticultural crops. The province has been endowed with
agro-climatic conditions which are appropriate for commercial farming of almost all
kinds of vegetables growing in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa such as potato, tomato, coriander,
radish, turnip, cucumber, brinjals, okra, bitter gourd, bottle gourd, squashes and green
spinach (GoP, 2010).
1.4.1 Bitter gourd
Bitter gourd is a member of the Cucurbitaceous family and a relative of squash,
watermelon, muskmelon, and cucumber. It is considered as an ancient vegetable and is
a native of the tropics. It is an annual plant of climbing or trilling nature and is cultivated
throughout the country. During 2003-2004 bitter gourd was grown over an area of 5459
18
hectares and its production was 51,217 ton. Bitter gourd skin is bright green in color, the
flesh inside is white, and the seeds are small and tender. The vegetable is ridged, and the
skin is pebbly in texture (Khushk, 2007).
1.4.2 Tomato
Tomato, Lycopersicum esculentum (Family solanaceae) is a well-liked and nutritive
vegetable crop. Tomato is an important source of minerals and antioxidants such as
carotenoids, lycopene, supplement C, E and phenolic compounds which have a key
function in individual nourishment to prevent certain cancer and heart diseases (Adalid
et al., 2004). Tomato is utilized in various methods including sundried tomatoes, tomato
juice, tomato soup, tomato catsup and fresh as salad (Frusciante et al., 2007).
In Pakistan, during 2010, tomato was grown on about 53.40 million hectares with the
production of 561.90 thousand tons. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, it was grown on
16.50 million hectares with the production of 161.80 thousand tons, with an average yield
of 9.8 tons per hectare (GoP, 2010).
1.5 Research Area
1.5.1 District Charsadda
Charsadda is 17 miles from Peshawar located in the west of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
and is bounded by Malakand District on the north, Mardan district on the east, Nowshera
and Peshawar districts on the south and the Mohmand Agency of the Federally
Administered Tribal Areas on the west (Appendix-D). This district has one of the most
fertile lands in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Total area of the district is about 996 square
kilometers (243753 acres). Total cultivated area is 210255 acres (61%), irrigated area is
180339 acres, i.e. 86% of the total cultivated area. There are three rivers flowing in
Charsadda: the River Jindi, the Kabul River, and the Swat River; these are the main
source of irrigation for Charsadda land. The three rivers then merge and join the Indus
River. The area surrounded by River Swat and River Kabul is called Doaaba and has a
great importance in the District. The district is administratively subdivided into two
Tehsils namely tehsil Charsadda and Tangai which contained a total of 46 Union
Councils (www.smeda.org).
19
The population of Charsadda is 1.7 million according to the year 2000. Charsadda having
the density 1081 person/Sq.Km, Its literacy rate is 43.09%. Employment position
according to the year 2000 is that 165574 are employed and 49531 are Unemployed. All
major infrastructures are available for communication in which 352.km as high type road
in district Charsadda (Appendix-D). But the Railway facility are still awakened, water
and electricity facility are available. Main languages are Urdu and Pashto. English
language is also well understood. Main markets are Charsadda Bazaar, Othmanzo
Bazaar, Omerzo Bazar, Ghafoor Market, Dhere Shabqadder Bazaar among there Omerzo
Bazar are very famous (www.smeda.org).
About 86 percent of the district land is irrigated mostly through canals and the rest is
dependent on tube well and other sources. In the canal irrigated area where soil is loamy,
deep plowing is carried out and cash crops are widely grown. The land of Charsadda is
known to be the most fertile land of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the main crops of
Charsadda are: tobacco, sugarcane, sugar beet, wheat and maize. Vegetables include
potato, cabbage, brinjals, okra, bitter gourd, bottle gourd, squashes and spinach. Major
fruits in Charsadda are watermelon, musk melon, apricots, guava, peaches, plums,
persimmons and strawberry (www.smeda.org).
1.5.2 District Malakand
Malakand district, having an area of about 952 square kilometers and population is over
4.5 lac as per population census of 2000 is situated in the lower reaches of the Swat
region. Administratively, Malakand has been divided into Swat Ranizai (Upper
Malakand) tehsil Batkhela and Sum Ranizai (Lower Malakand) tehsils Dargai
(Appendix-E). A part of Malakand is occupied by the Uthman Khel clan of Pakhtuns
(Pathans), those towards the south, at the bottom of Malakand Pass, live the Ranizai
known as Sum Ranizai. While areas beyond the pass towards Swat is Swat Ranizai
(www.smeda.org).
Being a key route to Swat, Dir, Buner, Shangla and Chitral districts, the Malakand Pass
has remained for years the target of foreign invasions. The ancient route between Central
Asia and India passes through it. Before the British occupation, it represented Pakhtuns
grandeur (www.smeda.org).
20
The land of Malakand is very fertile as compared to other areas of the region. Rice is the
principal crop of Malakand. In Kharif rice, maize, millet and sugarcane are grown in
abundance while in Rabi the main crops are wheat, barley and tobacco. Vegetables
include potato, tomato, cucumber, brinjals, okra, bottle gourd, squashes and spinach
(www.smeda.org).
The land of Malakand abounds in greenery and has abundance of orchards where the
main fruits grown are oranges, kinos (mandens), grapes, loquats, pears, plums and
apricots. These fruits are supplied to the rest of the country in commercial quantity.
Oranges (Malta) of Palai are very famous all over the country (www.smeda.org).
1.6 Justification of the study
Pakistan is an agricultural country and stands 6th in the world in terms of population but
it has a huge gap between the supply and demand of food requirements. To narrow this
gap, government of Pakistan adopted different techniques like V-AID, IRDP, T&V and
Participatory Approach etc. These techniques were abandoned due to poor feedback
mechanism, high cost, and low financial reward. Among several weaknesses of these
approaches salient were repetition of the same extension messages over a long time
improper selection of contact farmers, most of the front-line extension workers were not
competent to use group teaching method; the selection of extension workers was based
on factors other than competence; the approach often regarded as top-down oriented
allowing information to flow from research organization to the farming community via
extension field staff without sufficient sensitivity to local conditions and sustainability
of FFS etc.
Farmer Field School is relatively a new approach in Pakistan institutionalize in December
2000, which addressed the above-mentioned issues and had relatively more success. The
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government adopted the FFS approach later than the rest of the
provinces in 2004; hence no research has been conducted to assess its benefits and flaws
in the study area so far.
1.7 Importance of the Study
In this study, an attempt is made to analyze the role of farmer field school in enhancing
tomato and bitter gourd productivity, its benefits and shortcomings. Tomato and bitter
gourd are the cash and widely used crops of the study area. Tomato is grown twice in a
21
year due to the favorable climatic conditions for the crop and the dependency of farmers’
income on tomato crop. Tomato produce is widely distributed to the other parts of the
country. Similarly bitter gourd is grown in large amount in the study area is distributed
to other parts of the country and even exported to the United Arab Emirate (UAE). As
the FFS approach is new in the study area so it is worth important to study the interaction
of extension agents with farmers, the adaptation ratio of FFS approach, comparison of
different crop management practices before and after FFS for raising tomato and bitter
gourd and their effect on productivity. This research study will be of unique importance
and benefit to the extension personnel, farmers, policy makers, academicians etc. In light
of the findings of this research study, future course of action is recommended and
suggestions for alleviating its short comings will be given to the farming community,
extension personnel and policy makers of Pakistan generally and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
specifically.
1.8 Objectives of the study
The main objectives of the research study are given below:
1. To analyze the activities of Farmer Field School approach used by farmers in
tomato and bitter gourd crops of the study area.
2. To study the interaction of extension personnel/facilitators with farmers and the
adoption ratio of FFS approach in the study area.
3. To study the different crop management practices in tomato and bitter gourd.
4. To determine variation in per acre yield of the crops and profit margin per acre.
22
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In order to make a structure of reference for the present study, similar and relevant
research work done earlier is highlighted in this chapter. Similar thematic studies are
presented here under the same headings.
2.1 Agriculture Extension in Pakistan
Agriculture system in Pakistan is very complex due its geography, cropping patterns,
production systems, cropping pattern, different cultural practices etc. Considerable
changes have been observed over the past few decades in agriculture. Almost 70% of our
population depends on agriculture (Economic survey of Pakistan, 2013), it is vital for
our food security and acts as an engine for economic growth. Agriculture extension
officers are backbone of our agriculture systems. They are based in every agriculture
research station across the country.
Many agricultural extension programs have been initiated in different times in Pakistan.
These include Training and Visit (T&V), Village Aid Program (Mallah, 1997), Basic
Democracy System (Waseem, 1982 and Chaudhry, 2002), Rural Work program
(Waseem, 1982 and Malik, 1990), Barani Area Development program (Waseem,
1982) and Farmer Field Schools (Habib et al., 2007). All of these programs have had
their strengths and weaknesses (Abbas et al., 2009). One of the main goals of FFS is the
promotion of sustainable agricultural practices. Sustainable agriculture is the use of
practices and processes to achieve environmental health, economic profitability and
social and economic equity. Sustainable agricultural practices rest on the principle to
meet the needs of today without compromising the generations of future to meet their
needs (Agriculture Sustainability Institute UC Davis website). Most of the FFS studies
approaches are the introduction/adoption of IPM/ICM strategies and the promotion of
sustainable agricultural practices. An introduction to Farmer Field Schools (FFS) has
already been discussed in section 1.1 and here we will further review it in next section.
2.2 Farmer Field Schools for introducing new strategies in crop improvement
In the last few decade FFS for IPM related activities has emerged a great approach by
education of farmers for better and efficient management of their crops (Pontius et al.,
2002). One such activity is the use of biological control agents for controlling insect/pests
23
so that to lessen the use of insecticides. Biological control approach is the use of
biological agent to control pests in different crops. Awareness regarding biological
approach is a good step in reducing the use of chemicals insecticides. There are many
success stories of biological control strategies in controlling pest population (Peter et al.,
2005). This include spraying of sugar water on crop for attraction of predatory wasps and
ants into crop fields, application of cater pillar soup to beans for attraction of predatory
wasps, by transfer of vespid wasp nets to cater pillar infesting crops, by not burning crops
remains for conservation earwigs that prey on cater pillars in maize, placing of maggot
infested potatoes onto ants nests, introduction of chicken into crops to eat grass hoper
caterpillars (Rodriquez 1993, Bentley et al., 1994).
A study conducted in Thailand first show the farmer how biological control works in the
field by first taking the farmers to the Zoo. Where a Lycosid spider was placed in among
collected brown plant hopper in clear bottle. This study showed that due to FFS the use
of biological control agent increased 34% as compared to non-FFS participants, which
was 10% (Ooi and Kenmore, 2005). In another such activity biological control of
Diamond back moth was achieved in 6 months through FFS in Vietnam (Ooi, 2006). In
Sari township of Iran, regression and discriminative analysis of FFS approach for
adoption control through biological means in pests of rice was evaluated. It was observed
that adoption of biological control was 63% (High to Very high) by the FSS participants
while it was only 13% in non-FFS participants (Dinpanah and Zand, 2012). Also
Dinpanah et al., (2010) conducted a study to conclude the effect of FFS approach on rice
growers individually and adoption of biological control. The research was conducted
from 72 farmers who got training of farmer field school (FFS) program and 346 non-
participants. Randomized sampling method was used for target population. The
methodology of this study was dual that is causal comparative and descriptive
correlative. The results of the multiple regression analysis exposed that the knowledge
of biological control, rice producers experiences, comparative benefit, social
contribution, mechanization level, quantity of the fact or state of being acquainted with
extension personnel, the use mass media and information sources were 75.9% of the
adoption of biological control by rice producers who had FFS participants and the
nonparticipants of FFS had the knowledge of biological control 83.1% of the adoption
by rice producers.
24
FFS approach is about learning and adoption and it actively encourages farmers to
conduct their own research into biological control and other aspects of IPM. Mr. Park
Oyo, a farmer of rice in Indonesia, observed dragonflies perching on bamboo stems in
his rice nursery. He then used his knowledge of predation/experimentation which he
learned and started his own study/experimentations. He analyzed dragon fly and brown
plant hopper numbers by using different layout of bamboo stems and timings/time
periods to analyze, if the perches attracts more dragon flies to his rice fields or not. His
observation led to convincing of the other farmers nearby and now local farmers are
planting 40hs of land with bamboo perches (Ooi, 1998).
Farmer Field Schools have positive impacts on adoption of new technologies/practices
for improved crop production. For instance, a study conducted in Peru in 2004 shows the
difference between adoption of new technologies/practices between FFS and nonFFS
participants. Significant increase in adoption of new technologies i.e. Improved varieties,
pesticide/fungicide use, late blight control, potato weevil control, potato tuber moth
control, were observed by the FFS participants than non-FFS farmers It was found that
over all use of IPM practices through FFS has the potential to increase the production of
potato by 32% (Gotland et al., 2004). Although these are promising studies it remains to
be seen if this persist over a long period of time.
2.3 FFS for improvement in crop management strategies
Crop management strategies include Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Integrated
Crop Management (ICM) strategies. Farmers Field School has played a very positive
role in crop management strategies (Fliert et al. 1993, 1995; Stock 1996). IPM has proven
central to many crop management strategies (Gyawali and Salokhe 1997; Nyambo et al.
(1997). In one such study conducted in central district of Indonesia about helping farmers
develop the attitude of making their own decisions and learning by doing and this
program showed remarkable success in supporting sustainable agriculture in Indonesia
(Fliert and Fliert 1993).
FFS has shown very positive effect on adoption of IPM in many crops in different
countries of the world (Mauceri et al., 2005; Carlberg 2012; Erbaugh et al., 2010). In
Ghana, yield of groundnut increased many fold by the participants of FFS than
nonparticipants by adopting IPM strategies (Calberg et al., 2012). A very important study
25
conducted in Uganda on adoption of IPM in cowpea crop showed that FFS participants
significantly led to more knowledge and adoption of IPM (Erbaugh et al., 2010).
Expenditure on insecticide use in onion was observed to be significantly lower by the
FFS participants than non FFS participants in Philippines (Yorobe et al, 2011).
A PhD study conducted in Nepal in 2005 shows that FFS approach was very effective in
promoting IPM technology in rice. It was observed that knowledge level acquisition on
various aspects of technology also played a significant role in adoption process. It was
concluded that FFS should be promoted at local and national level (Bhatt 2005). Also FF
schools positively affected adoption of IPM in tomato in Sudan. This approach was
termed as “very efficient” in transfer of farm technology in vegetable farms (Abdel-
Rahman et al., 2012). Mangan (1997) investigated the training of rice growing farmers
in Mcishan County, Sichuan, China. This study investigated the FFS approach for
farmers to recognize harmful pest or insect in the rice crop, useful insects and neutral
insects on their crops and empower the farmer to take decisions on pest management
consequently and take action against these pests. Data collected before and after the
training in this study indicated that an impression of pest predator associations and how
generalized predators can assist and look after the crop had been developed by the Farmer
Field School. It was found that FFS is useful in empowering farmers to minimize
utilization of pesticides. In another such the adoption of IPM approaches through FFS
trainings was studied. It was observed that after FFS trainings majority of respondents
(93.06%) used resistant varieties of corn, while 91.44% experienced cultural
management, perform of Agro Ecosystem Analysis (AESA) protection of useful and
beneficial insect and minimize application of pesticides. This was strongly followed by
the use and application of natural fertilizer (89.17%) and timing of inorganic fertilizer
application (86.39%). Botanical was used by 58.01%, biological control agents (55%)
and rat baiting (30%). Having been apprehensive with the health and environmental
hazards bring about by using pesticides was the majority regularly mentioned social
benefit obtained from using IPM and FFS suggested practices. The standard regularity
of spraying decreased from four times to one time during the whole cropping seasons
(Canama et al., 2003). Also, David and Asamoah (2011) assessed researcher’s post
training adoption of integrated crop and pest management (ICPM) practices in perennial
crops. It was observed that post training adoption faces methodological challenges in
26
measuring yield and decision making capacity. This paper proposes using of post training
farmer knowledge as an early pointer of integrated crop and pest managements (ICPM)
adoption. Based on knowledge test scores from Ghanaian farmers who graduated from
farmer field schools (FFS) on cocoa ICPM, the study showed that the training uncovered
participants to agro-ecological principles and knowledge about biological processes not
known by most Ghanaian cocoa farmers and suggests that improved knowledge is
probable to convert to improved practice
Despite the financial constraints on FFS most of the research work done on its
effectiveness in crop management studies have shown that FFS is an effective tool in the
adoption of IPM and/or new technologies for improved crop management strategies
(Bhatt, 2005; Erbaugh et al., 2010; Yorobe et al., 2011; Abdel Rahman et al., 2012).
However, the long term gains through FFS regarding crop yield, better crop management
practices and over all uplift of the communities negate the financial aspect of FFS.
Awareness through FFS has seen considerable improvement in attitude of the farming
communities to application of pesticides. Researches have revealed that in rice crops in
Indonesia large amount of insecticides were used to kill brown plant hopper and it was a
very common practice among the farming community. This was also eradicating its
predators in the same fields. Through the FFS approach, after the beginning of the
training of trainers (ToT), farmers were able themselves to monitor field trials and by
comparing conventional crop control and IPM over a complete growing period or
cropping seasons. They would also meet to converse and share the ideas and experience
subsequently. Farmer Field School participant were to minimize the use and application
of insecticide by the range of 80-100% (Schmidt, 1997). Duriat (1999) reported that hot
pepper growing farmers totally depend on different pesticide for the management of
diseases and pests. Acknowledgment of pesticide residues on hot pepper developed in
North East of Central Java showed that residues of organic phosphates were 20-200
times, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)/World Health Organizations
(WHO) utmost residue restrictions. For this rationale, integrated pest management,
which deals with non-chemical control, becomes very essential. Numerous predators or
useful insects were originated as well as Caccicella, “Coccinella” species in aphids;
Amblyseius cucumeris “Neoseiulus cucumeris” species in thrips and mites; Aphidius
species, a parasite of nymph aphids; and Telenomus spodopterae, a parasite of army
27
worm egg. The botanical fungicide Tithonia diversifolia showed an excellent
management outcome beside fruit rot anthracnose and cercospora leaf spots, its
effectiveness was identical to the relevance of mancozeb 0.2%. A frail cucumber mosaic
virus constructed from viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) and satellite ribonucleic acid
provided excellent plant protection measure beside a virulent cytomegalovirus (CMV).
Methyl eugenol and Melaleuca bracteates oil were excellent fruit fly attractants and can
be used as chemical trap for capturing of fruit fly. The application of silver colored plastic
mulch resulted in more vigorous, healthy plants and privileged fruit yield. This
technology is transferred to the farmers through Farmer Field Schools in a national
Integrated Pest Managements program (Duriat, 1999). In another study in Vietnam FFS
training was conducted due to the fact that farmers were using huge amount of
insecticides on rice crops. They were used to even spray chemicals for anticipation
reasons. The study shows that insecticide application did not influence yield of rice and
farmers still used insecticides. Farmers of the area learned well about injurious impact of
insecticides to human health. Use of insecticides was reduced to only 8% of control
farmers (non FFS participants), 15% of NES farmers and 35% of IPM trained farmers.
The remaining farmers protected themselves during spray, and used enthusiastic plants
(Chi et al., 2004).
Analyzing all these studies it has been observed that an immediate reduction in use of
insecticide/pesticides, increase in yield manifold and shifts to less hazardous products
(Chi et al., 2004; Habib et al., 2007; Dinpanah and Zand, 2012) through FFS approaches.
This has led to ecological improvement by decrease in application of chemicals in the
areas and reducing occupational toxicities to the farmers by the chemicals (Pincus, 2000,
Habib et al., 2007; Van den Berg and Jiggins, 2007; Dinpanah and Zand, 2012).
2.4 FFS studies in Pakistan
Very few studies have been conducted on FFS in Pakistan (Arif and Ashraf 2000; Habib
et al., 2007, Bajwa et al., 2007, Bajwa et al., 2012, Iqbal et al., 2012). These studies were
on Cotton (Arif and Ashraf 2000), Sugar can (Habib et al., 2007) and rice (Iqbal et al.,
2012). No other studies have been reported in any other crop in Pakistan. Other studies
in Pakistan have analyzed the efficiency provided by the FFS for spreading of
agricultural technology in Punjab, Pakistan (Bajwa et al. 2008). Studies on rice and
28
sugarcane were on very limited scale in four villages only of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
(Habib et al., 2007; Iqbal et al., 2012).
2.5 Summary of the review of literature
Extension services, communication in mass in media and other such services have played
a major role in introducing new technologies and practices to farming community around
the world. But there has been less to non-investment in educating the farming
community. These previous attempts have failed to educate farmers on the sustainable
agricultural practices (Van den Berg and Jiggins, 2007). Farmer Field School (FFS) is
one such practice that is held normally in the fields in regular session from planting till
harvest. There is also room for evolving and experimentation during the period of
training.
It has been observed that FFS are excellent tools to educate the farmers regarding
sustainable agriculture, IPM/ICM practices, as these are schools without walls. FFS
participant have been seen to adopt the technologies and process that is deemed good for
the best agricultural practices. Also, immediate increase in yield, decreases in
number/quantity of insecticides, adoption of new technologies have been observed in the
participants of FFS.
There is no study conducted on Tomato’s and Bitter gourd crop, which are the main
vegetables of the study area. Studies previously conducted in Pakistan are of limited in
nature in rice and sugar can (Habib et al., 2007; Iqbal et al., 2012). The number of
participants and number of villages selected in these studies were limited. The scope of
current study is much wider and the crop selected is of very important nature to the
communities of the area. Furthermore, Pakistan has very low literacy rate, mostly they
are unaware of the IPM/ICM practices and this study was designed to convey this to the
farming community in Tomato’s and Bitter gourd crops.
III. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Methodology of the research study provides a pathway to researcher how to complete the
process of collection, interpretation of data and analysis of the data (Nachmias and
29
Nachmias, 1992). This chapter describes what techniques and parameters were used to
conduct this research study. Both primary and secondary data were collected and
collated. The primary data were collected through a well-defined interview schedule
designed for sampled respondents, while secondary data were gathered from the various
published and unpublished materials.
3.1 UNIVERSE OF THE STUDY
This study was carried out in two districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan
(Appendix-C). The population for this study was consisted of total number of FFS
members in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. For the convenience of the researcher, sample
respondents were selected as under:
3.2 SELECTION OF SAMPLE
Multistage sampling method was used to draw the required sample for the present study.
A sample is called a multistage sample when it is selected in stages, the sample units, at
each stage being sub-sampled from the large units selected at the previous stage
(Cochran, 1977).
The agro-climatic conditions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are very diverse which provide
basis of cultivation of a wide range of horticultural and field crops. These vary from
tropical and sub-tropical in south and central parts while it piercingly changed to wet and
cold in the north and east. The varied agro-climatic conditions of the province have some
what different characteristics and distinguishes one from the other.
Based on altitude variation, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has been divided into five different
Agro-Ecological Zones. Each zone has distinctly different conditions with regard to
climate, soils, agriculture, cultural and socio-economic characters of its population.
The Agro-Ecological Zones and their sub-zones with regard to the areas covered in the
respective Agro-Ecological Zones are given in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Agro-Ecological Zones of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa based on altitude
variation
Zone Sub-zone Description Areas
A 2 Northern dry mountain
A-1 Very cold, Very dry
mountain
Chitral
30
A-2 Cold and dry mountain Upper Malakand, Buner, Shangla,
Swat, Dir Lower, Dir Upper
B 2 Eastern wet mountains
B-1 Sub-humid mountains
(rainfall less than 1000mm)
Kohistan, Battagram, Mansehra
B-2 Wet mountains (more than
1000mm rainfall)
Abbottabad, Haripur
C 0 Central valley plains Lower Malakand, Charsadda, Mardan,
Swabi, Peshawar
D 2 Piedmont plains
D-1 Southern Piedmont plains Bannu, Karak, Kohat
D-2 Suleiman Piedmont plains Lakki Mawat, Tank, D I Khan
E 0 Western dry mountains FATA
Source: ARP-II Diagnostic survey, 1994
The sample had five stages i.e. Zone, District, Tehsil, Union Council and Village/FFS.
Zones and districts have been chosen and the rest were sampled. The details are as under:
3.2.1 Selection of Agro-Ecological Zone
The third Agro-Ecological Zone (C) has been purposively selected due to wide range of
Farmer Field School establishment in it. Moreover, agricultural operations and activities
are comparatively more widespread and progressive in the selected zone.
3.2.2 Selection of districts
In 2001 Project for Horticulture Promotion (PHP) trained 60 facilitators in the whole
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province and conducted FFSs on fruits and vegetables. Later on
the Provincial agriculture extension department established FFSs from 2004-2009 in all
the 25 districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through trained facilitators of PHP. So from 25
districts, two districts Charsadda and Malakand were selected purposively as the FFS
were established in the area.
3.2.3 Selection of tehsils
There were two tehsil in Charsadda and two tehsil in Malakand. Out of which tehsil
Charsadda and tehsil Dargai were selected purposively, because FFS were established in
the selected tehsil on selected crops.
31
3.2.4 Selection of Union Councils
Five union councils were purposively selected from each selected tehsil. The union
councils from tehsil Charsadda were Utmanzai, Turangzai, Rajjar, Nisatta and Dheri
Zardad, while the UCs of tehsil Dargai were Jabban, Heroshah, Haryan Kot, Ghari
Usmani Khel and Wartair.
3.2.5 Selection of villages/FFSs
Two villages from each union council were purposively selected due to establishment of
Farmers Field School (FFS). From UC Utmanzai villages, Hafiz Jee Qila and Toor
Kalay, from UC Turangzai, Sarki and Inzar Qila, from UC Rajjar, Ghari Kaka Khel and
Ghari Kanan Khel, from UC Nisatta, Sher Khan Kalay and Afzalyano Korona, from UC
Dheri Zardad, Yar Muhammad Khan Qila and Sultan Abad, from UC Jabban, Jabban
and Bijligar Colony, from UC Heroshah, Palonow and Heroshah, from UC Haryankot,
Zara Maira and Deghar Ghar, from UC Ghari Usmani Khel, Sidra Jour and Anar Thangi
and from UC Wartair villages Miangano Korona and Wartair villages were selected. The
sampling units are set in Table 3.2.
3.3 SELECTION OF RESPONDENTS
Fifteen respondents were randomly selected from each village/FFS on the basis of 60%
of the total population of FFS members, which contributes, to total number of
respondents as 300 from 20 villages of 10 union councils. Data were collected from the
FFSs farmers conducted on Tomato and Bitter Gourd crops of the study area i.e.
Charsadda and Malakand.
3.4 COLLECTION OF DATA
Research was based both on primary and secondary data. Primary data were collected
from the FFS trained farmers and secondary data from agriculture extension department
and various unpublished/published materials.
3.4.1 Interview schedule development
Interview schedule was designed based on objectives of the study in such a way to collect
complete and concrete information. The interview schedule was pre-tested on 10 farmers
whose names are not included in respondents list. It was done to check the validity and
32
reliability and necessary amendments were made based on the suggestions of farmers
and the researchers own observation.
3.4.2 Interview procedure
The researcher personally interviewed each and every respondent. During the interview
process the intention of the study was also explained to the respondents to remove any
doubt about the information to be collected.
3.5 DATA ANALYSIS
The collected data were transferred to computer and then analyzed with the help of
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16. Simple data analysis included
frequency distribution and cross tabulation was performed. As the study compared the
yields of tomato and bitter gourd before and after FFS, a paired t-test was applied for
each crop individually to check the significant difference at 5% level of probability. The
pair t-test for convenience is given as: d
t = ....................................................................................................................... 3.1 sd n
Where: d = difference between two sample observations (before and after FFS) n =
number of pairs sd = standard deviation
sd = di d 2 andd
di , the mean of d-values. n 1
n
Chi- Square
In order to investigate the association between various variables before and after FFS i.e.
education level, farming experience, cropping pattern, yield and income, Chi-square test
was also performed with 5% level of significance. Chi-square test is defined in equation
(3.2), for convenience:
2 ij ij )2 r c (O e
……………………….. (3.2) i 1 j 1 eij
This test under the null hypothesis (H0) follows a 2 -distribution with (r 1)(c 1) degrees
of freedom, in equation (3.2), Oij indicates the observed frequency and eij shows the
expected frequency.
33
Chi-square values are calculated by taking squared summation of frequencies for each
cell, dividing by the expected frequency. The calculated values are compared with
tabulated values of Chi-square for relevant degree of freedom at a specific probability
level to determine the significance of association. The relevant degree of freedom was
calculated as follows: df = (r-1) (c-1) Conditions for a chi-square test include that
1. The subjects for each group are randomly and independently selected
2. Each observation must qualify for one and only one category and
3. Sample size must fairly be large such that no expected frequency is less than
5, for r and c > 2, or < 10 if r = c = 2
However, third assumption was violated in the data and therefore, Fisher Exact Test
was used instead of simple chi-square. The relationship by the fisher is given in
equation below (Baily, 1982);
Fisher exact test =
Where a, b, c and d were the observed numbers in four cells of contingency Table and
“n” the total number of observations.
Dummy variable regression model
In regression analysis, the dependent variable is not only influenced by quantitative
variable but also qualitative variable has some effect on the said variable. The presences
or absence of an attribute is also an indication of such variable. The method to calculate
such an attribute takes the values of 0 or 1 showing the absence and presence
respectively, called dummy variable (Gujarati. 2004).
In order to check the significance of education level affecting each of the tomato and
bitter gourd yield regression analysis with dummy variable approach was applied.
y = β0 + β1D1 + β2D2 + β3D3 + β4D4 + β5D5 ………………… (3.3)
D1 = {1, if the farmer having primary education and 0 other wise}
D2 = {1, if the farmer having middle education and 0 other wise}
D3 = {1, if the farmer having matric education and 0 other wise}
D4 = {1, if the farmer having intermediate education and 0 other wise}
34
D5 = {1, if the farmer having graduate education and 0 other wise}
It is important to mention that the effects of illiterate farmers were measured by the
intercept term 0 .
35
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter is based on primary and secondary data and field observations. An effort
has been made to investigate, discuss and interpret the data regarding an empirical
analysis of farmer field school and its effect on agricultural productivity in Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. The data collected through pre tested interview schedule from
300 respondents are presented as under:
4.1 Age
Age is an important factor, which determines the response of a person during various
activities in his life. Rational discussion making process also depends on age. According
to the demographic studies, physiological reports and other research findings, it has been
agreed upon that age along with creativity and adoptability are positively correlated. In
other words, younger the person, rapid will be his adoptability and responsiveness to any
activity, particularly, in communication and understanding (Jensen, 1982; Basant, 1988;
Tsur et al., 1990). Age plays a vital role in adoption of any innovation. In other words
adoption and diffusion of invention are positively correlated with age (Braun, 2000). The
data represented in the Table 4.1 reveal that farmers of the study area were categorized
into four groups both for district Charsadda and district Malakand. The respondents
belonged to the age of 21-30 years, 31-40 years, 41-50 years and above 51 years. It was
found that there were only 32 respondents in first age group, out of which 5, 8, 6, 5, 4
and 4 were from the FFS villages Hafiz Jee Qila, Toor Kalay, Sarkai, Inzar Qila, Sher
Khan Kalay and Afzalyano Korona of the district Charsadda and were found 11
respondents which is 7.3 percent of the total population of district Malakand. Out of 11
respondents 1, 1, 4, 4, and 1 were from Jabban, Bijligar Colony, Heroshah, Anar Thangi
and Miangano Korona FFS villages respectively. The second age group contained 61
respondents and became the major group of respondents, out of which 5, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10,
6, 5, 8, and 7 were from Hafiz Jee Qila, Toor Kalay, Sarkai, Inzar Qila, Ghari Kaka Khel,
Ghari Kanan Khel, Sher Khan Kalay, Afzalyano Korona, Yar Muhammad Khan Qila
And Sultan Abad of the district Charsadda and were found 50 respondents which is 33.3
percent in district Malakand. Out of 50 respondents 6, 11, 4, 3, 5, 9, 1, 3, 6, and 2 were
from Jabban, Bijligar Colony, Palonow, Heroshah, Zara Maira, Deghar Ghar, Sidra Jour,
Anar Thangi, Miangano Korona and Wartair FFS villages respectively. The third age
group contained second majority that is 42 respondents in district Charsadda, out of 42
respondents 4, 2, 4, 3, 7, 4, 4, 2, 5 and 7 belonged to Hafiz Jee Qila, Toor Kalay, Sarkai,
36
Inzar Qila, Ghari Kaka Khel, Ghari Kanan Khel, Sher Khan Kalay, Afzalyano Korona,
Yar Muhammad Khan Qila And Sultan Abad of the district Charsadda FFS villages
respectively and found the second majority of the age group were also the third age group
in district Malakand contained 49 respondents which is 32.7 percent, out of which 8, 3,
7, 6, 2, 4, 6, 2, 4 and 7 from the FFS village Jabban, Bijligar Colony,
Palonow, Heroshah, Zara Maira, Deghar Ghar, Sidra Jour, Anar Thangi, Miangano
Korona and Wartair respectively. The last age group comprised of 15 respondents out of
which 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 2 and 1 belong to Hafiz Jee Qila, Toor Kalay, Inzar Qila, Ghari
Kaka Khel, Ghari Kanan Khel, Sher Khan Kalay, Afzalyano Korona, Yar Muhammad
Khan Qila and Sultan Abad of the district Charsadda while in district Malakand the last
group contained 40 respondents, out of which 4, 2, 8, 2, 8, 6, 4 and 6 belonged to
Palonow, Heroshah, Zara Maira, Deghar Ghar, Sidra Jour, Anar Thangi, Miangano
Korona and Wartair FFS villages respectively (Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1).
37
Table: 4.1 Distribution of the respondents regarding their Age
Location Respondents Age (In Years)
Total
Charsadda
(Bitter Gourd)
Name of FFS 21-30 31-40 41-50 Above
51
Hafiz Jee Qila 5 5 4 1 15
Toor Kalay 8 2 2 3 15
Sarkai 6 5 4 0 15
Inzar Qila 5 6 3 1 15
Ghari Kaka Khel 0 7 7 1 15
Ghari Kanan Khel 0 10 4 1 15
Sher Khan Kalay 4 6 4 1 15
Afzalyano Korona 4 5 2 4 15
Yar M. Khan Qila 0 8 5 2 15
Sultan Abad 0 7 7 1 15
Total 32(21.3) 61(40.7) 42(28.0) 15(10.0) 150 (100)
Malakand
(Tomato)
Jabban 1 6 8 0 15
Bijligar Colony 1 11 3 0 15
Palonow 0 4 7 4 15
Heroshah 4 3 6 2 15
Zara Maira 0 5 2 8 15
Deghar Ghar 0 9 4 2 15
Sidra Jour 0 1 6 8 15
Anar Thangi 4 3 2 6 15
Miangano Korona 1 6 4 4 15
Wartair 0 2 7 6 15
Total 11 (7.3) 50(33.3) 49(32.7) 40(26.7) 150 (100)
Grand total 43 (14.3) 111 (37) 91(30.3) 55(18.3) 300 (100)
Source: Field survey Note: Figures in parenthesis are percentages
38
Figure 4.1 Age of the respondents
4.2. Education level
Education is considered to play a fundamental role in human resource development.
Education is a form of acquiring new knowledge; skills and habits of a group of people
are transferred from one generation to the next, through training, research and/or simply
through self-directed learning. Generally, it occurs through any experience that has a
formative effect on the way one thinks, believes or acts. Education level of the
respondents help in judging the quality of human resources and developing stages of
society as it broadens the vision of the community. Education affects the human
performance directly or indirectly. Educated people are expected to have more favorable
attitude towards agricultural skills, knowledge and information as judged against
uneducated ones (Hassan, 1991). Therefore, it was essential to collect the data about this
feature to imagine the image of education level. Data in this regards are presented in
Table 4.2.
Farmers were categorized into six different groups on the basis of their educational level.
First group of the farmers were not educated, second group was primary having education
up to 5th class, the third was middle having 6-8 years of education, the fourth was Matric
having 10 years of schooling, the fifth was intermediate having 12 years of education
and the last one was graduate having educational level above intermediate.
39
The education levels were categorized for both districts Charsadda and Malakand. It was
found from the data presented in Table 4.2 that out of the total 150 sample respondents
34 (22.7 %) were illiterate in district Charsadda. Out of these 34 respondents 2, 6, 3, 6,
4, 5, 3 and 5 belonged to Toor Kalay, Sarkai, Inzar Qila, Ghari Kaka Khel, Ghari Kanan
Khel, Afzalyano Korona, Yar Muhammad Khan Qila and Sultan Abad FFS villages
respectively, while in district Malakand 63 (42.0 %) respondents were illiterate of the
total 150 sample respondents. Out of which 6, 6, 6, 6, 4, 11, 11 and 8 belonged from
Jabban, Bijligar Colony, Palonow, Heroshah, Zara Maira, Deghar Ghar, Sidra Jour,
Miangano Korona and Wartair FFS villages respectively. The farmers who had the
primary level of education were 37 (24.7 %) in district Charsadda, recorded 8 in village
Inzar Qila followed by 5 and 5 in villages Afzalyano Korona and Sultan Abad while in
district Malakand the respondents having primary educational level were 17 (11.3 %).
Out of which the majority of respondents 8 were found in village Anar Thangi. The
farmers who had educational level up to middle were 23 (15.3 %) recorded in district
Charsadda, out of which the high number of respondents were found 5 belonged to Ghari
Kanan Khel while in district Malakand the total number of respondents having education
up to middle were 19 (12.7 %) out of which 5 respondents belonged to Deghar Ghar.
There were 40 (26.7 %) respondents who had educational level up to Matric. In
Charsadda district out of these 40 respondents 3, 3, 5, 2, 5, 3, 6, 5, 4 and 4 belonged to
Hafiz Jee Qila, Toor Kalay, Sarkai, Inzar Qila, Ghari Kaka Khel, Ghari Kanan Khel, Sher
Khan Kalay, Afzalyano Korona, Yar Muhammad Khan Qila and Sultan Abad FFS
villages, respectively. In district Malakand there were 43 (28.7 %) respondents who had
educational level up to Matric, out of which 8, 7, 4, 4, 6, 3, 1, 6, 1 and 3 belong to jabban,
Bijligar Colony, Palonow, Heroshah, Zara Maira, Deghar Ghar, Sidra Jour, Anar Thangi,
Miangano Korona and Wartair respectively. There were 9 (6.0 %) respondents who had
educational level of intermediate, out of which 2, 2, 2, 2 and 1 were from Hafiz Jee Qila,
Toor Kalay, Sarkai, Ghari Kanan Khel and Afzalyano Korona of district Charsadda while
in district Malakand the number of respondents having intermediate education were 5
(3.3 %) out of these 1 from Jabban, 2 from Palonow, 1 from Heroshah and 1 from
Wartair. The last educational group having 7 (4.7 %) respondents in district Charsadda,
out of which 4 belonged to Hafiz Jee Qila, 2 from Toor Kalay and 1 from Sher Khan
Kalay while in district Malakand 3 (2.0 %) respondents were reported, out of which 2
belonged to Palonow and 1 to Heroshah.
40
District wise comparison shows that literacy level is high in Charsadda 77.3 % as
compare to district Malakand, where the literacy level is low having 58 % literate
farmers. It is evident from the table 4.2 that majority of the farmers had education up to
matric i.e. having 10 years of schooling, followed by primary and middle. The data
represented in Table 4.2 is graphically given for easy understanding.
Table: 4.2 Distribution of the respondents regarding their literacy level
Location literacy level Total
Charsadda
(Bitter
Gourd)
Name of FFS Illiterate Primary Middle Matric Intermediate
Graduate
Hafiz Jee Qila 0 4 2 3 2 4 15
Toor Kalay 2 5 1 3 2 2 15
Sarkai 6 1 1 5 2 0 15
Inzar Qila 3 8 2 2 0 0 15
Ghari Kaka Khel 6 2 2 5 0 0 15
Ghari Kanan Khel 4 1 5 3 2 0 15
Sher Khan Kalay 0 5 3 6 0 1 15
Afzalyano
Korona
5 4 0 5 1 0 15
Yar M. Khan Qila 3 5 3 4 0 0 15
Sultan Abad 5 2 4 4 0 0 15
Total 34 (22.7)
37 (24.7)
23 (15.3)
40 (26.7)
9
(6.0) 7
(4.7) 150
(100)
Malakand
(Tomato)
Jabban 5 0 1 8 1 0 15
Bijligar Colony 6 0 2 7 0 0 15
Palonow 6 0 1 4 2 2 15
Heroshah 6 0 3 4 1 1 15
Zara Maira 6 2 1 6 0 0 15
Deghar Ghar 4 3 5 3 0 0 15
Sidra Jour 11 0 3 1 0 0 15
Anar Thangi 0 8 1 6 0 0 15
Miangano Korona 11 1 2 1 0 0 15
Wartair 8 3 0 3 1 0 15
Total 63 (42.0)
17 (11.3)
19 (12.7)
43 (28.7)
5
(3.3) 3
(2.0) 150
(100)
Grand total 97
(32)
54
(18)
42
(14)
83
(28)
14
(5)
10
(3)
300
(100) Source: Field survey Note: Figures in parenthesis are percentages
41
Figure 4.2 Educational levels of the respondents
4.3 Household size
Socio-economic development is negatively interrelated with household size. Household
size depends on dependents including children and old age people. Large is the household
size more will be the expenses incurred on their daily life. Thus, few will stay behind to
invest in agricultural activities. Respondents of the study area were categorized in to five
different groups on the basis of their family size. In the first group there were 1-5
members, in the second group the family size was 6-10 members, in the third group 11-
15, in the fourth group 16-20 and in the last group the members of the family were above
20. Data presented in Table 4.3 showed information about the family size of the
respondents in the study area. It was found that there were 62 (20.67 %) respondents
having family members up to 5, out of which 39 belonged to district Charsadda while
the rest 23 respondents belonged to district Malakand. In the second group having family
members up to 10 were reported by177 (59.0 %) respondents, out of which 99 belonged
to district Charsadda while the remaining 78 respondents belonged to district Malakand.
In the third group there were 51 (17.0 %) respondents, out of which 12 belonged to
district Charsadda and 39 respondents belonged to district Malakand respectively. In
42
fourth group having family size up to 20 comprised of 9 (3.0 %) respondents and all of
the respondents belonged to district Malakand. The last group of family size having more
than 20 members contained only 1 respondent belonging to district Malakand. Table 4.3
showed that majority (177) respondents were having family size of 6-10 members
followed by the group having 1-5 members were 62 respondents.
The Table 4.3 further illustrates that large family size having 11 members to above 20
were mostly found in Malakand district while majority of the small family size were
reported in Charsadda district having 1-10 members. The figure 4.3 shows the graphical
representation of data shown in Table 4.3 for understanding at a glance.
Table 4.3 Distribution of respondents regarding their household size
Location
Number of respondents by household size
Total 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 Above 20
Charsadda 39 99 12 0 0 150
Malakand 23 78 39 9 1 150
Total 62 (20.67) 177 (59.0) 51 (17.0) 9 (3) 1 (0.33) 300 (100)
Source: Field survey Note: Figures in parenthesis are percentages
Figure 4.3 Respondents household size
43
4.4 Farming experience
Farming experience is an important aspect that influences productivity of the farmers.
More experience makes the farmers to take feasible and possible actions for the crops.
Farmers of the study area were categorized into six groups. The first group of those
farmers who had farming experience from 1-10 years, the second group were of the
farmers who had 11-15 years experience, third and fourth group were of the farmers who
had 16-20 and 21-25 years of experience, fifth group had the farming experience of 26-
30 years, and the last group contains the respondents who had above 31 years of farming
experience. Table 4.4 represents the data on the basis of their farming experiences. The
data showed that there were 19 respondents who had farming experience of 6 -10 years
in district Charsadda, out of which 3, 3, 3, 5, 2 and 3 were of Hafiz Jee Qila, Toor Kalay,
Sarkai, Inzar Qila, Sher Khan Kalay and Afzalyano Korona respectively, while in district
Malakand the number of respondents were 9 in the first group of farming experience, out
of which 2, 1, 3, 1 and 2 were from Heroshah, Deghar Ghar, Anar Thangi, Miangano
Korona and Wartair respectively. The second group having farming experience of 11-15
years, comprises of 37 farmers in district Charsadda and 27 in district Malakand. In
district Charsadda 5, 4, 5, 4 and 4 were the majority numbers of farmer from Toor Kalay,
Sarkai, Ghari Kaka Khel, Afzalyano Korona and Sultan Abad, respectively. While in
district Malakand 3, 3, 3, 6, 4 and 3 respondents were from Jabban, Bijligar Colony,
Heroshah, Deghar Ghar, Miangano Korona and Wartair, respectively. Third group of
farmers who had farming experience of 16-20 years, contained 44 respondents in district
Charsadda out of which the majority 5, 8, 8 and 5 were from Hafiz Jee Qila, Ghari Kanan
Khel, Yar Muhammad Khan Qila and Sultan Abad respectively while in district
Malakand the number of farmers in third group was 25. Out of these 25, 4, 3, 3 and 3
were from Bijligar Colony, Palonow, Deghar Ghar and Wartair respectively. The fourth
group in district Charsadda comprised of 19 respondents and 18 in district Malakand,
while the fifth group contained 19 respondents in district Charsadda and 25 in district
Malakand. In district Malakand out of the 25, respondents 4 and 5 belonged to Jabban
and Heroshah respectively. The last group of farming experience contains 12 respondents
in district Charsadda and 46 in district Malakand. In this group farmers belonged to
district Malakand were more experienced in the farming, out of these 46 farmers, the
majority
44
6, 7, 9 and 9 were from Jabban, Palonow, Zara Maira and Sidra Jour respectively. In
farming experience many factors are involved that are own views, public judgment,
technology adoption, change agent and marketing (Kotile and Martin, 1998).
Overall analysis of the table 4.4 showed that majority (133) of the respondents have
farming experience of 11-20 years comprising 44.3 % of the total respondents, while 53
respondents had farming experience above 31 years comprise 19.3 % of the total
respondents. Furthermore, district wise comparison showed that majority (71) of the
farmers having farming experience above 26 years were found in Malakand district,
while majority i.e. 81 respondents out of 133 respondents having farming experience of
11-20 years were found in district Charsadda. Figure 4.4 shows the graphical
representation of data given in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Distribution of respondents regarding their farming experience
Location Farming experience (in Years)
Total
Charsadda
(Bitter
Gourd)
Name of FFS Up to
10
11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Above
31
Hafiz Jee Qila 3 3 5 0 3 1 15
Toor Kalay 3 5 3 2 1 1 15
Sarkai 3 4 4 1 2 1 15
Inzar Qila 5 3 2 4 0 1 15
Ghari Kaka Khel 0 5 4 3 3 0 15
Ghari Kanan Khel 0 3 8 0 3 1 15
Sher Khan Kalay 2 3 3 3 1 3 15
Afzalyano
Korona
3 4 2 2 1 3 15
Yar M. Khan Qila 0 3 8 2 1 1 15
Sultan Abad 0 4 5 2 4 0 15
Total
19
(12.7)
37
(24.7)
44
(29.3)
19
(12.7)
19
(12.7)
12
(8.0)
150
(100)
Malakand
(Tomato)
Jabban 0 3 2 0 4 6 15
Bijligar Colony 0 3 4 3 3 2 15
Palonow 0 1 3 2 2 7 15
Heroshah 2 3 2 1 5 2 15
Zara Maira 0 2 2 2 0 9 15
Deghar Ghar 1 6 3 1 3 1 15
Sidra Jour 0 1 2 0 3 9 15
Anar Thangi 3 1 2 3 2 4 15
Miangano Korona 1 4 2 4 1 3 15
Wartair 2 3 3 2 2 3 15
Total
9
(6.0)
27
(18.0)
25
(16.7)
18
(12.0)
25
(16.7)
46
(30.7)
150
(100)
45
Grand total
28
(9.3)
64
(21.3)
69
(23)
37
(12.3)
44
(14.7)
58
(19.3)
300
(100)
Source: Field survey Note: Figures in parenthesis are percentages
Figure 4.4 Farming experience of the respondents
4.5 Size/status of land holding
The FFS approach had the most beneficial effect on farmers with medium size land. The
program showed limited impact on farmers having smaller land size. But it had a
significant impact on farmers with medium size land areas. This is also important when
targeting groups. Farmers with the smallest land size may not have enough land to
experiment on, or they may be too busy working on other people’s land to be able to
participate fully in the FFS. Farmers with larger land size may not have the need to
participate in programs such as FFS that are geared towards reducing poverty. The time
needed to participate in the FFS may also stop larger scale land owners from participating
(Davis, 2006). Table 4.5 shows the data of land holding of farmers which were collected
in the study area. In the table 4.5 the land holding was categorized into four different
categories i.e. area owned, lease in, lease out and culturable waste. The farmers of district
Charsadda contained the total land of 1483 acres with the average land holding size of
9.89 acres/farmer. Out of these 1483 acres, 939 acres were the owned land of farmers,
491acres were lease in and 53 acres were the culturable waste, no big landlord farmer
were identified in district Charsadda who lease out the land. In district Malakand the total
area contained by the farmers were 971 acres with average land holding size of 6.47
acres/farmer, out of which 713 acres were owned land, 183 acres were lease in and 75
46
acres were Culturable waste. In district Malakand no large landlord farmer was identified
who leased out the land for farming practices. Land holding size has a positive
connection with the adoption of innovations (Mirza, 1993).
Table 4.5 Area wise distribution of the respondents regarding land holding
Location Area of Respondents in Acres
Charsadda
(Bitter
Gourd)
Name of FFS
Area
Owned
Lease In Lease
Out
Culturable
Waste
Total
Hafiz Jee Qila 95 136 0 18 249
Toor Kalay 156 130 0 7 293
Sarkai 210 85 0 9 304
Inzar Qila 157 102 0 5 264
Ghari Kaka Khel 33 4 0 1 38
Ghari Kanan
Khel
19 11 0 1 31
Sher Khan Kalay 111 10 0 6 127
Afzalyano
Korona
81 0 0 2 83
Yar M. Khan
Qila
60 0 0 2 62
Sultan Abad 17 13 0 2 32
Total 939 491 0 53 1483
Malakand
(Tomato)
Jabban 94 26 0 13 133
Bijligar Colony 58 28 0 8 94
Palonow 95 23 0 9 127
Heroshah 143 0 0 15 158
Zara Maira 67 3 0 7 77
Deghar Ghar 39 5 0 3 47
Sidra Jour 27 39 0 3 69
Anar Thangi 131 22 0 10 163
Miangano
Korona
22 30 0 3 55
Wartair 37 7 0 4 48
Total 713 183 0 75 971
Grand total 1652 674 0 128 2454
Source: Field survey
47
4.6 Irrigation status of land
The major reason of the leading position of the agriculture in the country’s economy is
its good irrigation system. It is viewed that with the help of irrigation both land use and
cropping intensity can be increased many folds. Moreover, it also made possible the
application of better inputs which play key roles in enhancing the productivity like
fertilizers, better seeds, insecticides and pesticides which mostly depends on timely
availability of irrigation facility (Chaudhry, 1983 and Arbab, 1989). It is also argued that
the overall production cost of a crop varies with the changes in irrigation system.
Therefore, any changes, increase or decrease in the irrigation cost will have a similar
effect on the overall production cost (Main and Khan, 1981 and Arbab, 1989). In Pakistan
of the total 22.94 million cropped hectares in 2003-04, for example, 18.84 million
hectares i.e. nearly 82% were irrigated (GoP, 2005). Pakistan’s irrigated agriculture
mainly depends on both surface and ground water sources. The surface water (canal) is
mainly in the public sector and this is the cheapest source of irrigation. However, this
facility cannot be extended to all farms (Mian and Khan, 1981).
In the study area, two types of irrigation systems were found i.e. canal irrigation and tube
well irrigation system. Table 4.6 shows that there were total 1483 acres of land in district
Charsadda, out of which 1430 acres were irrigated and 53 acres were unirrigated. The
main source of irrigation was canal system in district Charsadda. All of the FFS
participants were irrigating their land through canal and paid 400 rupees for one season
of vegetables. In district Malakand both canal and tube well irrigation systems were used
for irrigation purposes. Some villages in district Malakand were in high altitude from the
canal and did not avail the irrigation system through canal, so the farmers of those areas
were using tube wells for irrigation purposes. But irrigation through tube wells were little
bit costly because of the unavailability of electricity and high cost of diesels. The farmers
were paid for diesel, electricity and abiana at the average of 5140 rupees per crop seasons.
The total area of tomato grower FFS participants were 971 acres, out of which 896 acres
were irrigated and 75 were unirrigated.
Table 4.6 Irrigation status of land of the study area
Location
Irrigation Status
Irrigated
(acres)
Un-Irrigated
(acres)
Cost of irrigation
(Rs)
Charsadda (Bitter Gourd) 1430 53 400
48
Malakand (Tomato) 896 75 5140
Total 2326 128
Source: Field survey
4.7 Cropping pattern
Cropping systems of a region are decided by a large number of soil and climatic
parameters which determine overall agro-ecological setting for nourishment and
appropriateness of a crop for cultivation. However, at farmer’s level, potential
productivity and economic benefits act as guiding principles while opting for a particular
crop/cropping systems (Das, 1999). Multiplicity of cropping systems has been one of the
main features of agriculture. Cropping systems remain dynamic in time and space,
making it difficult to precisely determine their spread using conventional methods, over
a large territory. However, it has been estimated that more double cropping systems are
followed throughout the country. Based on rational of spread of crops in each district in
the country, some important cropping systems have been identified.
These are; Wheat-Bitter gourd-Maize, Wheat-Bitter gourd-Tomato-Maize, Wheat-
Sugarcane- Bitter gourd-Bottle gourd, Wheat-Sugarcane-Bitter gourd-Bottle
gourdSquashes, Wheat-Okra- Bitter gourd-Tomato-Maize, Wheat-Okra-Bitter
gourdTomato-Maize-Sugarcane, Wheat- Tomato-Maize, Wheat-Tomato-Maize-Okra,
Wheat-Sugarcane-Tomato, Wheat-Sugarcane- Tomato-Okra, Wheat-Tomato-
OnionMaize and Wheat-Tomato-Bottle gourd- Onion- Maize .
After the training of farmer field school, the farmers were aware about the need and
importance of cropping system. In FFS the farmers were encouraged to grow more crops
in a piece of land and intercropping was also encouraged. Major crops were protected
when the other crops was intercropped. The second crop work as a repellent. Table 4.7
shows that the farmers had adopted the multiple cropping systems and grows more crops
than before. In district Charsadda majority (71) respondents grow four crops before FFS
and after FFS the number of respondents was 62. The farmers growing five crops before
FFS were 42, which increased to 70 numbers after FFS. The six crop grower before FFS
was only 10 and after FFS were 18. In district Malakand three crops grower before FFS
were 75 and after FFS was 13. Four crops grower before FFS was 75 which increased to
137 after FFS. No single respondent was found to grow five and six crops. The data show
the significance after FFS and the adoption of cropping pattern of FFS trained farmers in
the study area.
49
Table 4.7 Distribution of respondents regarding number of crops grown
Location
Three crops Four crops Five crops Six crops
Total Before
FFS
After
FFS
Before
FFS
After
FFS
Before
FFS
After
FFS
Before
FFS
After
FFS
Charsadda
(Bitter
Gourd)
Hafiz Jee Qila 4 0 6 7 4 6 1 2 15
Toor Kalay 2 0 8 6 5 8 0 1 15
Sarkai 2 0 4 3 7 8 2 4 15
Inzar Qila 2 0 6 6 6 6 1 3 15
Ghari Kaka Khel 3 0 8 7 3 7 1 1 15
Ghari Kanan
Khel
2 0 6 5 6 9 1 1 15
Sher Khan Kalay 3 0 8 6 4 8 0 1 15
Afzalyano
Korona 4 0 10 11 1 4 0 0 15
Yar M. Khan
Qila
2 0 10 7 2 7 1 1 15
Sultan Abad 3 0 5 4 4 7 3 4 15
Total
27
(18.0)
0
(0.00)
71
(47.3)
62
(41.3)
42
(28.0)
70
(46.7)
10
(6.7)
18
(12.0)
150
(100)
Malakand
(Tomato)
Jabban 6 1 9 14 0 0 0 0 15
Bijligar Colony 7 1 8 14 0 0 0 0 15
Palonow 12 0 3 15 0 0 0 0 15
Heroshah 5 0 10 15 0 0 0 0 15
Zara Maira 6 3 9 12 0 0 0 0 15
Deghar Ghar 4 0 11 15 0 0 0 0 15
Sidra Jour 11 1 4 14 0 0 0 0 15
Anar Thangi 8 2 7 13 0 0 0 0 15
Miangano
Korona
7 3 8 12 0 0 0 0 15
Wartair 9 2 6 13 0 0 0 0 15
Total
75
(50.0)
13
(9)
75
(50.0)
137
(91)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
150
(100)
Grand total 102
(34)
13
(4)
146
(49)
199
(66)
42
(14)
70
(23)
10
(3)
18
(6)
300
(100) Source: Field survey Note: Figures in parenthesis are percentages
4.8. Acquaintance with extension personnel
The behavior of every person plays a vital role in dissemination of any information either
negative or positive, which have a significant effect on the personality of any person.
More knowledge, courageousness, practical skills, self-confidence and good moral
character can play a significant role in the technology transfer process. No doubt in some
cases these qualities are God gifted but due to hard work it can be acquired too (Adams,
1994). The extension worker obsessed the qualities such as regularity, activeness,
50
decision making power and dutiful, from low to high level, whereas all these qualities
were apparent as highly important for their job performance (Ali, 1991).
Extension worker present training and information to farmers. They educate farmers how
to get better productivity and improve quality of their crops. Extension agent helps
farmers to adopt improved inputs, use additional productive farming techniques and aim
more profitable markets, develop agricultural productivity, increase household income
and enhance the quality of life in the communities they serve (Robertson, 2013).
Table 4.8 shows that all the FFS participants of district Charsadda and Malakand knew
the extension personnel/facilitator in the study area through different sources which were
included in the table 4.8 i.e. in field, in office, in village and telephone. In the study these
places were mentioned because of common place and the chance of meeting with
extension personnel were more in these areas. A total of 116 respondents told that they
know the extension personnel and met them in field, 14 respondents met with extension
personnel in their office, 12 in village and 8 made a phone call in district Charsadda.
While in district Malakand, 74 farmers met in the field before FFS with extension
personnel, 15 went to the office of extension personnel, 47 met in village and 14 made a
call to the office of agriculture extension personnel. The data showed that the extension
personnel visit the field of the farmers before FFS and have strong linkage with farmers.
Most of the respondents identified that they knew the extension personnel in field and in
village. The figure 4.5 shows the graphical representation of data shown in Table 4.8 for
understanding at a glance.
Table 4.8 Distribution of respondents stating acquaintance and venue of
contact with extension personnel/ facilitator before FFS
Location
Yes
No
If Yes
Charsadda
(Bitter Gourd)
Name of FFS
In field In
office
Village phone Total
Hafiz Jee Qila 15 0 11 1 2 1 15
Toor Kalay 15 0 9 2 2 2 15
Sarkai 15 0 12 1 1 1 15
Inzar Qila 15 0 12 2 1 0 15
Ghari Kaka Khel 15 0 13 0 1 1 15
Ghari Kanan Khel 15 0 13 1 1 0 15
Sher Khan Kalay 15 0 13 2 0 0 15
51
Afzalyano Korona 15 0 11 2 2 0 15
Yar M. Khan Qila 15 0 12 1 0 2 15
Sultan Abad 15 0 10 2 2 1 15
Total 150 0 116
(77.3)
14
(9.3)
12 (8.0) 8 (5.3) 150
(100)
Malakand
(Tomato)
Jabban 15 0 7 2 4 2 15
Bijligar Colony 15 0 8 1 5 1 15
Palonow 15 0 6 4 4 1 15
Heroshah 15 0 8 1 4 2 15
Zara Maira 15 0 9 0 5 1 15
Deghar Ghar 15 0 7 2 4 2 15
Sidra Jour 15 0 7 1 5 2 15
Anar Thangi 15 0 7 1 6 1 15
Miangano Korona 15 0 8 1 5 1 15
Wartair 15 0 7 2 5 1 15
Total 150 0 74
(49.3)
15 (10) 47
(31.3)
14 (9.3) 150
(100)
Grand total 300 0 190
(63.3)
29
(9.7)
59
(19.7)
22 (7.3) 300
(100)
Source: Field survey Note: Figures in parenthesis are percentages
52
Figure 4.5 Knowledge or acquaintance with Extension personnel
4.9 Farmer’s visit to extension personnel/facilitator’s office
Farmers visit to extension personnel office for gaining new knowledge and information
inevitable because farmers came across new problems relating to their crops every day.
These problems could include fungal attack, root rot, blight, aphids and white fly etc.
The visits signify the interest of farmers and their confidence in agricultural extension
personnel. The greater the confidence in agricultural personnel, the more frequent visits
will be paid by the farmers (Abbas et al., 2008, Akhtar, 1990). Table 4.9 shows that 92
FFS respondents have visited the office of extension personnel/facilitator, while 58 did
not pay any visit in district Charsadda. Out of 92 respondents, 16 visited the office
weekly, 38 respondents visited monthly and 37 yearly. Out of those respondents who did
not visit the office, 18 told that they have no time to visit the office, 30 said no need to
visit and 8 respondents gave other reasons. While in district Malakand, 87 respondents
visited the office of extension personnel after farmer field school (FFS) and 63 did not
visit. Out of these 87 respondents, 27 visit offices weekly for the solution of their
problems, 45 visited monthly and only 15 respondents visited the office of extension
personnel yearly.
Overall analysis of data in table 4.9 shows that 60 % of the respondents visited the
extension personnel office while 40 % did not pay any visit. Out of 63 respondents, who
53
did not visit the office, 2 showed no interest, 21 were busy and have no time to visit the
office, 25 respondents told that they did no visit the office but solved their problems by
themselves. These results are in conformity with Pervaiz (2009).
Table 4.9 Distribution of respondents regarding frequency of their visits to and reasons for not visiting local extension
personnel office for their solution of the problems after FFS
Location
Name of FFS
Yes
No Visit
If Yes, then frequency If No, reasons
Daily Weekly Monthly Yearly No Interest
Have No
Time Not
Required Others
Charsadda
(Bitter Gourd)
Hafiz Jee Qila 9 6 0 2 3 4 0 2 3 1
Toor Kalay 10 5 0 3 6 1 0 3 2 0
Sarkai 10 5 0 2 4 4 0 2 3 0
Inzar Qila 8 7 0 1 3 4 1 2 2 2
Ghari Kaka Khel 11 4 0 2 5 4 0 1 2 1
Ghari Kanan Khel 11 4 0 1 5 5 0 1 3 0
Sher Khan Kalay 9 6 0 2 3 4 0 2 3 1
Afzalyano Korona 8 7 1 0 4 3 0 2 4 1
Yar M. Khan Qila 9 6 0 3 2 4 0 1 4 1
Sultan Abad 7 8 0 0 3 4 1 2 4 1
Total 92 (61) 58 (39) 1 (0.7) 16 (10.7) 38 (25.3) 37(24.7) 2 (1.3) 18 (12.0) 30 (20.0) 8 (5.3)
Malakand (Tomato)
Jabban 9 6 0 4 4 1 0 2 3 1
Bijligar Colony 8 7 0 2 5 1 0 3 3 1
Palonow 9 6 0 2 5 2 0 2 2 2
Heroshah 7 8 0 1 4 2 1 2 3 2
Zara Maira 9 6 0 4 4 1 0 2 3 1
Deghar Ghar 10 5 0 2 6 2 0 1 3 1
Sidra Jour 10 5 0 2 5 3 0 2 2 1
Anar Thangi 6 9 0 2 2 2 1 4 2 2
Miangano Korona 9 6 0 2 6 1 0 2 2 2
Wartair 10 5 0 6 4 0 0 1 2 2
Total 87 (58) 63 (42) 0 27 (18.0) 45 (30.0) 15 (10.0) 2 (1.3) 21 (14.0) 25 (16.7) 15 (10)
Grand total 179 (60) 121 (40) 1 (0.3) 43 (14.3) 83 (27.7) 52 (17.3) 4 (1.3) 39 (13.0) 55 (18.3) 23 (7.7)
Source: Field Survey Note: Figure in parenthesis is percentages
44
56
4.10 Hierarchy of extension personnel visits
Extension personnel/facilitators play important role in the farmer’s community. In each
and every discipline position and status of a person matters a lot in the process of decision
making. In other words, higher the status and rank, more effective will be the staff action
and vice versa. In each study area there is extension personnel office and some resource
persons or experts of agriculture are present in the office. They may be subject matter
specialist’s (SMS), plant protection officers (PPO), agriculture officers (AO) or field
assistants (FA). The designations of all were different but play the same role for the
solution of farmer’s problems. Table 4.10 indicates that there were 92 respondents who
met with extension personnel in his office. Out of these 92
respondents in Charsadda, 16 met with subject matter specialist/plant protection officers,
41 met with agriculture officers and 35 met with field assistants. While the rest 58
respondents did not visit extension personnel in their office in district Charsadda. While
in district Malakand a total of 87 respondents met extension personnel in their offices,
out of those 87 respondents, 11 met with subject matter specialists/plant protection
officers, 40 met with agriculture officers and 36 met field assistants for the solution of
their problems and future improvement for crops, while the remaining 63 respondents
did not visit the office and solved their problems by themselves, through fellow farmers
or met with extension personnel in the field or village.
It is evident from the data in table 4.10 that majority of the respondents met with
agriculture officers on their visit, followed by field assistant and subject matter
specialist’s (SMS), plant protection officers (PPO). Figure 4.6 shows the graphical
representation of data given in Table 4.10.
Table 4.10 Distribution of respondents regarding to whom they met in the
office of agriculture extension
Location Extension Personnel/ facilitator
Charsadda
(Bitter
Gourd)
Name of FFS SMS PPO AO FA Total
Hafiz Jee Qila 1 5 3 9
Toor Kalay 2 4 4 10
Sarkai 1 4 5 10
Inzar Qila 2 3 3 8
Ghari Kaka Khel 3 5 3 11
57
Ghari Kanan Khel 2 4 5 11
Sher Khan Kalay 2 3 4 9
Afzalyano Korona 1 5 2 8
Yar M. Khan Qila 2 3 4 9
Sultan Abad 0 5 2 7
Total 16 (10.7) 41 (27.3) 35 (23.3) 92 (61.3)
Malakand
(Tomato)
Jabban 1 4 4 9
Bijligar Colony 2 3 3 8
Palonow 2 4 3 9
Heroshah 1 3 3 7
Zara Maira 0 6 3 9
Deghar Ghar 2 4 4 10
Sidra Jour 1 4 5 10
Anar Thangi 0 3 3 6
Miangano Korona 1 4 4 9
Wartair 1 5 4 10
Total 11 (7.3) 40 (26.7) 36 (24.0) 87 (58.0)
Grand total 27 (9) 81 (27) 71 (24) 179 (60)
Source: Field survey Note: Figures in parenthesis are percentages
58
Figure 4.6 Extension personnel met within the office of Agriculture extension
4.11 Extension personnel’s field visit
The main activity of extension worker is to visit the farming community. The purpose of
his visit is to educate the farmers, to know their problems they are facing in their everyday
life, to solve their problems and to get their response. The extension personnel are change
agents and paying regular visits to the farmer’s community to help and solve their
problems. Table 4.11 indicates that the extension personnel such as agriculture officer
(AO) and field assistant (FA) regularly visited the farmers in their fields. Data regarding
the visit of extension personnel showed that in district Charsadda 83 respondents told
that agriculture officer visited his field and 67 respondents reported that field assistant
visited their fields. In district Malakand the number of respondents whose fields were
visited by agriculture officer was 84 and the numbers of respondents to whom field
assistant visited were 66.
The data in Table 4.8 indicates that 116 in Charsadda and 74 in Malakand know extension
personnel due to field visit and in the Table 4.11 all are reporting as yes. The data
represented in Table 4.11 is graphically given for easy understanding in fig 4.7.
59
Table 4.11 Distribution of respondents regarding extension personnel visit to
their field
Location Extension personnel/facilitator
Charsadda
(Bitter
Gourd)
Name of FFS Yes No SMS/PPO AO FA Total
Hafiz Jee Qila 15 0 0 7 8 15
Toor Kalay 15 0 0 10 5 15
Sarkai 15 0 0 5 10 15
Inzar Qila 15 0 0 11 4 15
Ghari Kaka Khel 15 0 0 8 7 15
Ghari Kanan Khel 15 0 0 9 6 15
Sher Khan Kalay 15 0 0 7 8 15
Afzalyano
Korona
15 0 0 10 5 15
Yar M. Khan Qila 15 0 0 9 6 15
Sultan Abad 15 0 0 7 8 15
Total 150 0 0 (0.0) 83(55.3) 67 (44.7) 150 (100)
Malakand
(Tomato)
Jabban 15 0 0 7 8 15
Bijligar Colony 15 0 0 7 8 15
Palonow 15 0 0 8 7 15
Heroshah 15 0 0 6 9 15
Zara Maira 15 0 0 9 6 15
Deghar Ghar 15 0 0 7 8 15
Sidra Jour 15 0 0 8 7 15
Anar Thangi 15 0 0 12 4 15
Miangano Korona 15 0 0 9 6 15
Wartair 15 0 0 11 4 15
Total 150 0(0.0) 0 (0.0) 84(56.0) 66 (44.0) 150 (100)
Grand total 300 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 167(56) 133(44) 300 (100)
Source: Field survey Note: Figures in parenthesis are percentages
60
Figure 4.7 Visit of extension personnel to the Farmer’s Field
4.12 Frequency of extension personnel field visit before and after FFS
Farmer field school (FFS) facilitator play an important role in the smooth running of FFS
in the particular areas, and it is because, FFS facilitator has a close contact with FFS
registered farmers and have also the understanding of their living standard. For the sack
of close contact with farmers FFS facilitator must give extra support to farmers in
addition to their duties assigned by the concerned department. It is also important for
each FFS facilitator to develop a close cordial relation with FFS member farmers for the
effective dissemination of agricultural information to the farmers (Siddiqui, 2003).
The extension personnel visited the farmer’s fields at in different intervals because the
extension personnel were responsible for the area and were not possible for them to visit
all the farmers at once. Data regarding the visit of extension personnel are given in Table
4.12, which indicates that 59 respondents told that the extension personnel visited their
fields weekly, 67 reported that the extension personnel visited their fields monthly and
24 answered that the extension personnel visited their fields yearly and no one reported
that his field was visited daily in district Charsadda. In district Malakand, the number of
respondents whose fields were visited weekly were 60, and 67 respondents said that their
fields were visited monthly, 23 answered that their fields were visited yearly and again
no one reported that his fields were visited daily by the extension personnel. All the
respondents answered that the extension personnel visited their demonstration field
61
regularly on weekly bases after the establishment of FFS for the agro eco-system analysis
(AESA).
The data in Table 4.12 clearly indicates that before FFS activities majority of the
respondents stated that they were visited monthly by extension personnel; followed by
weekly and yearly visits. However, all the respondents reported that they were visited
weekly by extension personnel after FFS. The data represented in Table 4.12 is
graphically given for easy understanding.
Table 4.12 Distribution of respondents regarding extension personnel visit to
farmer’s fields
Location Frequency of extension personnel field visit
Charsadda
(Bitter
Gourd)
Name of FFS Before FFS After FFS
Daily Weekly Monthly Yearly Weekly
Hafiz Jee Qila 0 8 5 2 15
Toor Kalay 0 5 7 3 15
Sarkai 0 7 6 2 15
Inzar Qila 0 6 8 1 15
Ghari Kaka Khel 0 5 7 3 15
Ghari Kanan
Khel
0 5 5 5 15
Sher Khan Kalay 0 7 7 1 15
Afzalyano
Korona
0 4 8 3 15
Yar M. Khan
Qila
0 3 9 3 15
Sultan Abad 0 9 5 1 15
Total 0 (0.00) 59 (39.3) 67 (44.7) 24 (16.0) 150 (100)
Malakand
(Tomato)
Jabban 0 6 7 2 15
Bijligar Colony 0 6 8 1 15
Palonow 0 7 6 2 15
Heroshah 0 4 9 2 15
Zara Maira 0 9 3 3 15
Deghar Ghar 0 5 9 1 15
Sidra Jour 0 8 3 4 15
Anar Thangi 0 5 7 3 15
Miangano
Korona
0 3 9 3 15
Wartair 0 7 6 2 15
Total 0 (0.00) 60 (40.0) 67 (44.7) 23 (15.3) 150 (100)
62
Grand total 0 (0.00) 119 (39.7) 134 (44.7) 47 (15.7) 300 (100)
Source: Field survey Note: Figures in parenthesis are percentages
Figure 4.8 Frequency of extension personnel field visit
4.13 Source of knowledge/information about FFS
Agricultural research organizations are extension's closest institutional partners in
technology generation and transfer, because research scientists structure and organize the
technique and plane and manage research-extension linkages, which improve extension's
staff effectiveness. Agricultural research organizations in developing countries tackle a
lot of problems (Oram & Bindlish, 1984; Idachaba, 1987). The above mentioned
organizations are short of financial resources, keen shortage of well-trained scientists,
need of farmer response to make sure significance results of research, insufficient
equipments and research facilities, small staff self-esteem, and insufficient budgets for
operation, remuneration and employees’ incentives. A small number of these can be
addressed by extension personnel, but they can hinder the creation and invention of
technologies, resulting in smaller amount research outputs for transfer of extension. A
concern of research problems is an imperative step in planning extension actions and its
linkage with research. Weak links and coordination between extension and research are
main technology flow constraints in many countries (Kaimowitz et al., 1990; Eponou,
1993). There are two types of linkage problems: one regarding coordination support and
cooperation between extension and research, while second is upsetting feedback from
63
farmers to research and extension. In above mentioned both types of linkage problems,
extension personnel are capable to make the situation better by raising a linkage approach
and allocating responsibilities and sufficient resources for linkage tasks. For the diffusion
and adoption of innovation or new technologies information play an important role. The
source of information about new technologies and approaches are categorized into four
different categories i.e. agriculture personnel, agriculture research staff, mass media and
fellow farmers. Table 4.13 shows that the main source of information to know about FFS
was extension personnel and fellow farmers in both districts. In district Charsadda 104
respondents knew about FFS from extension personnel and 46 from fellow farmers, while
in district Malakand 94 respondents knew from extension personnel and 56 respondents
from fellow’s farmers. The figure 4.9 shows the graphical representation of data shown
in Table 4.13 for understanding at a glance.
Table 4.13 Distribution of respondents regarding source of information about
FFS
Location Source of information
Charsadda
(Bitter
Gourd)
Name of FFS
Agri. ext
personnel
Agri. research
staff
Mass
media
Fellow
farmer
Hafiz Jee Qila 10 0 0 5
Toor Kalay 11 0 0 4
Sarkai 12 0 0 3
Inzar Qila 13 0 0 2
Ghari Kaka Khel 11 0 0 4
Ghari Kanan Khel 14 0 0 1
Sher Khan Kalay 12 0 0 3
Afzalyano Korona 12 0 0 3
Yar M. Khan Qila 3 0 0 12
Sultan Abad 6 0 0 9
Total 104 (69.3) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 46 (30.7)
Malakand
(Tomato)
Jabban 7 0 0 8
Bijligar Colony 10 0 0 5
Palonow 7 0 0 8
Heroshah 8 0 0 7
Zara Maira 11 0 0 4
Deghar Ghar 8 0 0 7
Sidra Jour 7 0 0 8
Anar Thangi 13 0 0 2
Miangano Korona 11 0 0 4
Wartair 12 0 0 3
Total 94 (62.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 56 (37.3)
64
Grand total 198 (66.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 102 (34)
Source: Field survey Note: Figures in parenthesis are percentages
Figure 4.9 Source of knowledge about FFS
4.14 Extension methods used for information dissemination before FFS
The core principle of extension is information dissemination (Orr, 2003). The
information that is to be use should be disseminated in a manner that best facilitates it’s
utilization by farmers. On the other hand, information is delivered by a large number of
methods and the only issue is to resolve which method is mainly suitable for the
particular population. Agricultural extension affects the organization, shape, and content
of relocate activities (Moris, 1991). The leading attribute of the context is change
because the change influences all aspects of extension. The context should be implicit
and examined so that the extension can properly be managed. The challenge that arises
in this regard is how information can best be disseminated to intended populations. On
one hand, extension struggle to assemble the necessities of farms of large productions,
and, on the other hand, it seeks to accomplish the requirements of small farm land and
homeowners (Polson & Gastier, 2001). As a result extension has got to look for the
effective means of knowing the individuals preferences for getting information.
65
In agricultural extension there are three methods used for the dissemination of
information in farmer’s community i.e. individual method, group method and mass
method. In Table 4.14 the data indicate that there were two methods used for the
dissemination of information, individual and group methods. In district Charsadda, 29
farmers answered that the method used for information dissemination was individual,
121 said that group method was used for the dissemination of information and no one
used mass method. In district Malakand the methods used for the dissemination of
information were individual and group. The response of 45 farmers was that individual
method was used for information dissemination and 105 respondents told that the
method used for information was group method. The mass method was ignored in
district Malakand as well.
Looking at the data in Table 4.14, it shows that a huge majority of 226 respondents
comprising 75.3 % of the total sample reported that group method was used to
disseminate information as against 74 respondents (24.7%) who reported that individual
method was used. Thus, it can be concluded that group method is frequently used and
also effective in disseminating information to the farmers in the study area. For
comprehending at a glance the figure 4.10 reveals the graphical demonstration of data
displayed in Table 4.14.
66
Table 4.14 Distribution of respondents regarding extension methods used for
information dissemination before FFS
Location Extension methods used
Charsadda
(Bitter
Gourd)
Name of FFS Individual Group Mass Total
Hafiz Jee Qila 3 12 0 15
Toor Kalay 4 11 0 15
Sarkai 3 12 0 15
Inzar Qila 4 11 0 15
Ghari Kaka Khel 2 13 0 15
Ghari Kanan Khel 1 14 0 15
Sher Khan Kalay 4 11 0 15
Afzalyano Korona 3 12 0 15
Yar M. Khan Qila 3 12 0 15
Sultan Abad 2 13 0 15
Total 29 (19.3) 121 (80.7) 0 (0.0) 150 (100)
Malakand
(Tomato)
Jabban 5 10 0 15
Bijligar Colony 5 10 0 15
Palonow 3 12 0 15
Heroshah 3 12 0 15
Zara Maira 5 10 0 15
Deghar Ghar 6 9 0 15
Sidra Jour 5 10 0 15
Anar Thangi 5 10 0 15
Miangano Korona 4 11 0 15
Wartair 4 11 0 15
Total 45 (30.3) 105 (70.0) 0 (0.0) 150 (100)
Grand total 74 (24.7) 226 (75.3) 0 (0.0) 300 (100) Source: Field survey Note: Figures in parenthesis are percentages
67
Figure 4.10 Extension methods used for information dissemination before FFS
4.15 Extension approach used by extension personnel other than FFS
Extension approach refers to the principle for an organization, which informs, stimulates
and guides such aspects of the organization as its structure, mission, vision, leadership,
its programs, strategies, its resources and linkages. Extension approach influences the
choice of the target audience, the resource requirements and the allocation, their
methodologies employed, and the results and impacts of the extension efforts. Extension
approaches are the basic planning philosophy that is being adopted by an agricultural
extension organization. This helps extensionists to understand the fundamentals,
concepts and functional methods of extension adopted to fulfill its aims, especially in the
planning phase.
Many extension approaches in the past have been introduced like village AID, IRDP,
T&V, PSEA, PEA and CSEA, conventional and participatory etc; some of these
approaches were implemented in the field through farmer field school. Table 4.15 shows
the data of approaches which were being implemented in the field. In district Charsadda
54 farmers responded that conventional approach was used other then FFS and 96 farmers
responded that participatory technology development and dissemination approach was
used other than FFS while in district Malakand 59 farmers answered that conventional
approach was used and 97 farmers responded that participatory technology development
were used other than FFS. It is evident from the data that mostly participatory technology
development approach is being used by the extension personnel, showing its increasing
68
popularity. The figure 4.11 shows the graphical representation of data shown in Table
4.15 for understanding at a glance.
Table 4.15 Extension approaches used by extension personnel other than FFS
Location Training and
visit
Conventional Participatory
technology
development
Charsadda
(Bitter Gourd)
Name of FFS
Hafiz Jee Qila 0 7 8
Toor Kalay 0 5 10
Sarkai 0 7 8
Inzar Qila 0 5 10
Ghari Kaka Khel 0 4 11
Ghari Kanan
Khel
0 6 9
Sher Khan Kalay 0 7 8
Afzalyano
Korona
0 5 10
Yar M. Khan
Qila
0 4 11
Sultan Abad 0 4 11
Total 0 (0.0) 54 (36.0) 96 (64.0)
Malakand
(Tomato)
Jabban 0 7 8
Bijligar Colony 0 6 9
Palonow 0 7 8
Heroshah 0 5 10
Zara Maira 0 5 10
Deghar Ghar 0 6 9
Sidra Jour 0 5 10
Anar Thangi 0 7 8
Miangano
Korona
0 6 9
Wartair 0 5 10
Total 0 (0.0) 59 (39.3) 91 (60.7)
Grand total 0 (0.0) 113 (37.7) 187 (62.3)
Source: Field survey Note: Figures in parenthesis are percentages
69
Figure 4.11 Extension approach used by extension personnel other than FFS
4.16 Venue of contact with field assistants and agriculture officers before FFS The
prerequisite condition for appropriate communication was accessibility of suitable place.
During the collection of data questions were asked concerning places of contact. Usual
contacts of extension personnel with farmers were categorized in four different
categories, of which the most convenient and feasible contacts were farm, home/Hujra,
Mosque and office as presented in Table 4.16. Data regarding the contact show that
majority respondents (79) were contacted at their farm, followed by 39 respondents in
the office, 18 at home/Hujra and only 14 were contacted in Mosque in district Charsadda.
In district Malakand the number of farmers which were contacted by extension personnel
at farm was 62, followed by 57 respondents who were contacted at office, 22 respondents
in Mosque and only 9 respondents at home/Hujra. The results show that majority of the
farmers have contact with extension personnel at farm i.e. 141 and office i.e. 96 and the
contacts of extension personnel and farmers in Mosque and home/Hujra were in rare
cases. The figure 4.12 reveals the graphical illustration of data shown in Table 4.16 for
understanding at a glance.
70
Table 4.16 Venue of contact with field assistants and agriculture officers
before FFS
Location
Farm
Home/
Hujra
Masjid
Office
Total
Charsadda
(Bitter
Gourd)
Name of FFS
Hafiz Jee Qila 8 3 2 2 15
Toor Kalay 7 5 3 0 15
Sarkai 9 2 3 1 15
Inzar Qila 10 1 4 0 15
Ghari Kaka Khel 5 3 1 6 15
Ghari Kanan
Khel
4 4 0 7 15
Sher Khan Kalay 8 0 0 7 15
Afzalyano
Korona
7 0 0 8 15
Yar M. Khan
Qila
10 0 1 4 15
Sultan Abad 11 0 0 4 15
Total 79
(52.7)
18 (12) 14 (9.3) 39
(26)
150 (100)
Malakand
(Tomato)
Jabban 5 0 3 7 15
Bijligar Colony 3 0 4 8 15
Palonow 3 1 6 5 15
Heroshah 7 2 2 4 15
Zara Maira 6 3 0 6 15
Deghar Ghar 8 2 0 5 15
Sidra Jour 4 0 4 7 15
Anar Thangi 5 1 3 6 15
Miangano
Korona
11 0 0 4 15
Wartair 10 0 0 5 15
Total 62
(41.3)
9 (6) 22
(14.7)
57
(38)
150
(100)
Grand total 141 (47) 27 (9) 36 (12) 96 (32) 300 (100)
Source: Field survey
Note: Figures in parenthesis are percentages
71
Figure 4.12 Venue of contact with extension personnel before FFS
4.17 Activities being implemented by Extension personnel in FFS
Agricultural extension workers offer many and different types of services to farmers by
using a range of strategies to encourage farmers to adopt and implement agricultural
innovations (Oladosu and Okunade, 2006). Educational organizations that provide
training to extensionists are the most important elements in the institutional perspective
for extension. The work of universities and other training institutions has a significant
impact on the organizations that are responsible for extension. For increase in production
farmers and landowners need inputs, but access to these inputs is poor for most the time.
While inadequate transport and marketing infrastructures are root causes of the problem.
There are a few aspects that the extension can address. New varieties of crop which
produce higher yield and are resistant to pests and diseases become easily available to
the farmers. However, they must know when a variety is released and how it performs
well under certain farm conditions, and from where the seed and breeding material are
obtained. Extension is held responsible for imparting this information through contact
methods which are most suitable.
Governments set policies on producer and consumer commodity prices, subsidy for
inputs, credit availability, import substitution, export earnings, food self sufficiency, and
72
natural resource management. Extension organizations should be aware of market
signals to ensure that they are recommending technologies that meet farmers' current
needs. They also require feedback from farmers to make sure the sustained application
of their activities. Nowadays all agricultural operations need technical skills and
information, and without the use of technology agriculture cannot be developed
(Pervaiz, 2009). Activities and services provided and implemented by extension
personnel are presented in Table 4.17. The respondents in both districts Charsadda and
Malakand regarding the services provided by extension personnel were highly positive.
In the table 4.17 there were five types of services mentioned for the data. The farmers of
the study area answered that they knew new knowledge about modern agriculture
practices towards proper land management, crop rotation, cropping pattern and land
preparation. Use of improved technology such as quality seed, fertilizers and the uses of
these inputs in proper way and proper time, understanding of plant protection measures
such as biological, chemical, mechanical and cultural practices. Identification of useful
and harmful insects and management of pests and diseases, insect rearing and their life
cycle and know how to manage insect pests and diseases easily and how the cost of
insecticides and pesticides decreases and also awareness about marketing. In this regard
the proper method of picking, grading and packing was learned in farmer field school
and the groups of farmers were established to perform activities in a group form.
Table 4.17 Distribution of respondents regarding different activities being
implemented by extension personnel in FFS
Location
Improve
new
knowledge
Use of
improve
technology
Proper
agri. inputs
Uses
Understanding
of plant
Protection
measure
Awareness
marketing
facilities
Charsadda 150 150 150 150 150
Malakand 150 150 150 150 150
Total 300 (100) 300 (100) 300 (100) 300 (100) 300 (100)
Source: Field survey Note: Figures in parenthesis are percentages
4.18 Effectiveness of present extension services and farmer field school activities
The Farmer Field School under different agro-ecosystems is extremely valuable and
important. The FFS program attracted all the participants to whom these techniques are
transferred. As the number of participants increases, focus is put on FFSs in particular and
73
on extension in general. It is more important than ever to put into operation programs and
policies that go with the local circumstances and situations, in addition to the policy of
environment and farming systems. it is important to come up with sensible and smart best
fit solutions instead of blanketing areas with a one size fits all extension practice (Birner
et al., 2006 and Davis, 2006). The FFS program has proven itself to be effective and
fruitful in different conditions and situations.
Table 4.18 shows that the present extension services and farmer field schools were
effective in both districts. In district Charsadda, 120 respondents stated the level of
effectiveness as high, 30 respondents reported medium level of effectiveness and no one
reported effectiveness at lower level. While in district Malakand, 82 respondents reported
high level of effectiveness, medium level of effectiveness was stated by 68 and again no
one reported lower level of effectiveness. Overall data showed that 202 respondents out
of the total stated high level of effectiveness of extension services and farmer field school
activities while 98 reported medium level of effectiveness. The data presented in figure
4.13 is graphically given for easy understanding.
Table 4.18 Distribution of respondents regarding their perception of effectiveness
of present extension services and farmer field school activities
Location If yes, level of effectiveness
Charsadda
(Bitter
Gourd)
Name of FFS Yes No High Medium Lower
Hafiz Jee Qila 15 0 12 3 0
Toor Kalay 15 0 12 3 0
Sarkai 15 0 10 5 0
Inzar Qila 15 0 14 1 0
Ghari Kaka
Khel
15 0 11 4 0
Ghari Kanan
Khel
15 0 10 5 0
Sher Khan
Kalay
15 0 14 1 0
Afzalyano
Korona
15 0 15 0 0
Yar M. Khan
Qila
15 0 7 8 0
Sultan Abad 15 0 15 0 0
Total 150
(100)
0
(0.0)
120
(80.0)
30
(20.0)
0
(0.00)
74
Malakand
(Tomato)
Jabban 15 0 8 7 0
Bijligar Colony 15 0 11 4 0
Palonow 15 0 10 5 0
Heroshah 15 0 7 8 0
Zara Maira 15 0 8 7 0
Deghar Ghar 15 0 6 9 0
Sidra Jour 15 0 6 9 0
Anar Thangi 15 0 10 5 0
Miangano
Korona
15 0 10 5 0
Wartair 15 0 6 9 0
Total 150
(100)
0
(0.0)
82
(54.7)
68
(45.3)
0
(0.0)
Grand total 300
(100)
0 (0.0) 202
(67.3)
98 (32.7) 0 (0.0)
Source: Field survey Note: Figures in parenthesis are percentages
Figure 4.13: Level of effectiveness of present extension services and farmer field
school activities
4.19 Adoption and implementation of FFS activities in field
The ever growing population of the country is always posed challenges to the agricultural
scientist of the country. Tackling this challenge of feeding the huge population of the
country needs to design a comprehensive program which goes beyond the mere
75
dissemination of agricultural technologies in the farmers. They need to be educated in
the use of these technologies, in marketing and advocacy in such a way that enables the
farmers to seek solution to their problems (David, 2007). With the help of FFS approach
these objectives can be obtained, through which farmers are encouraged to know by
performing different experiments in the fields (Van den Berg, 2004).
Questions were asked from the farmers of the selected study area about the willingness
regarding the implementation and adoption of FFS activities in future. In Table 4.19
information regarding responses of farmer interest in adoption of FFS approach in future
is given. From the table 4.18 it was noted that in district Charsadda 72 farmers were
interested in adopting FFS approach in future, out of whom 8, 6, 9, 7, 5, 6, 7, 10, 6 and 8
were from Hafiz Jee Qila, Toor Kalay, Sarkai, Inzar Qila, Ghari Kaka Khel, Ghari Kanan
Khel, Sher Khan Kalay, Afzalyano Korona, Yar Muhammad Khan Qila and Sultan abad
respectively. While, the respondents adopting the FFS activities to some extent in future
were 78, out of whom 7, 9, 6, 8, 10, 9, 8, 5, 9, 7 belonged to Hafiz Jee Qila, Toor Kalay,
Sarkai, Inzar Qila, Ghari Kaka Khel, Ghari Kanan Khel, Sher Khan Kalay, Afzalyano
Korona, Yar Muhammad Khan Qila and Sultan Abad respectively. In district Malakand
it was found that 70 respondents were willing to adopt FFS approach entirely in future,
out of which 6, 8, 7, 6, 8, 5, 6, 8, 7 and 9 were from Jabban, Bijligar Colony, Palonow,
Heroshah, Zara Maira, Deghar Ghar, Sidra Jour, Anar Thangi, Miangano Korona and
Wartair respectively, while the respondents adopting the FFS activities to some extent in
future were 80. Out of 80 respondents, 9, 7, 8, 9, 7, 10, 9, 7, 8 and 6 belonged to Jabban,
Bijligar Colony, Palonow, Heroshah, Zara Maira, Deghar Ghar, Sidra Jour, Anar Thangi,
Miangano Korona and Wartair respectively. The results are in agreement to Van Den
Berg, 2007 and Muhammad et al. 2013.
Table 4.19 Distribution of respondents regarding their perception of adoption
and implementation of FFS activities in field in future
Location Name of FFS Yes No Some Extent
Charsadda
(Bitter
Gourd)
Hafiz Jee Qila 8 0 7
Toor Kalay 6 0 9
Sarkai 9 0 6
Inzar Qila 7 0 8
Ghari Kaka Khel 5 0 10
Ghari Kanan Khel 6 0 9
Sher Khan Kalay 7 0 8
76
Afzalyano Korona 10 0 5
Yar M. Khan Qila 6 0 9
Sultan Abad 8 0 7
Total 72 0 78
Malakand
(Tomato)
Jabban 6 0 9
Bijligar Colony 8 0 7
Palonow 7 0 8
Heroshah 6 0 9
Zara Maira 8 0 7
Deghar Ghar 5 0 10
Sidra Jour 6 0 9
Anar Thangi 8 0 7
Miangano Korona 7 0 8
Wartair 9 0 6
Total 70 0 80
Grand total 142 (47.3) 0 158 (52.7)
Source: Field survey Note: Figures in parenthesis are percentages
4.20 Land preparation
Land preparation refers to the term tillage. Cultivation of land and crop establishment
goes simultaneously, since the preparation of land affects the capability of the crop to
grow and produce a good and homogeneous crop stand and growth. Tillage is a major
requisite for good and quality yield. Preparation of Land has been adopted since
agriculture first started and farmers moved from being gatherers and hunters to living as
more immobile villagers. Land preparation has distorted from a labor-intensive to a
power-assisted work or activity with the passage of time, which depends on the
convenience of different energy and power sources. In the recent times tractors is the
major power source for tillage. Tillage is mainly done to control weeds through burying
and uprooting the weeds, to soften the surface soil and prepare a seedbed good for
allowing easier seeding of crop and to expose the organic matter of soil to oxygen and
facilitate release soil nutrients for smooth and proper growth of crop. Similarly tillage is
done to reduce compaction of the soil and its bulk density to allow for strong rooting and
improve soil structure. It also helps improve the infiltration of water and incorporate soil
amendments and organic materials to control diverse pests and diseases linked with soils.
It also assists operations that are required to level the land in order to allow more uniform
water application. It is evident that the farmers find them beneficial and useful for their
77
farming and have adapted different techniques suitable to the types of soil available on
their farms.
The data on land preparation presented in Table 4.20, show that in district Charsadda all
the respondents used plough for land preparation, 48 respondents used rotivator along
with plough and the cost of land preparation at the average of Rs.1670.80 per acre, while
in district Malakand all the respondents used plough, 82 respondents used rotivator as
well for land preparation at the average cost of Rs.1594.30 per acre.
Table 4.20 Distribution of respondents regarding land preparation
practices
Location Plough Rotivator Others
Cost
Charsadda
(Bitter
Gourd)
Name of FFS Yes No Yes No Yes No
Hafiz Jee Qila 15 0 6 9 0 0 1667
Toor Kalay 15 0 5 10 0 0 1640
Sarkai 15 0 4 11 0 0 1820
Inzar Qila 15 0 4 11 0 0 1587
Ghari Kaka Khel 15 0 3 12 0 0 1707
Ghari Kanan
Khel
15 0 3 12 0 0 1727
Sher Khan Kalay 15 0 4 11 0 0 1620
Afzalyano
Korona
15 0 9 6 0 0 1600
Yar M. Khan
Qila
15 0 5 10 0 0 1740
Sultan Abad 15 0 5 10 0 0 1600
Total 150 0 48 102 0 0 1670.80
Malakand
(Tomato)
Jabban 15 0 0 15 0 0 1650
Bijligar Colony 15 0 7 8 0 0 1600
Palonow 15 0 0 15 0 0 1640
Heroshah 15 0 0 15 0 0 1666.6
Zara Maira 15 0 15 0 0 0 1576.6
Deghar Ghar 15 0 15 0 0 0 1673.3
Sidra Jour 15 0 0 15 0 0 1616.6
Anar Thangi 15 0 15 0 0 0 1560
Miangano
Korona
15 0 15 0 0 0 1580
Wartair 15 0 15 0 0 0 1386.6
Total 150 0 82 68 0 0 1594.3
78
Grand total 300 0 130 170 0 0 1632.55
Source: Field survey
4.21 Seed quantity (gms/acre) and cost (Rs) of bitter gourd and tomato
The use of a good quality and recommended variety of seed plays an essential role in
agricultural productivity. It is true for the bitter gourd cultivation. This is proved fact that
those farmers who use the recommended variety of seed produce higher yield per acre
(Ahmad and Bakhsh, 2004). The seed rate and cost of seed were presented in
Table 4.21. Data show that the average quantity of bitter gourd seed were 386.8 gm/acre
before FFS and increased by 13.20 gm/acre reached to 400 gm/acre for one acre after
FFS and the cost of seed before FFS was at the average Rs.4134 and after FFS the cost
of seed was increased by Rs. 1923.07 to Rs. 6057.07. The cost was increased due to
inflation in market price of seed in Pakistan. The data show high significance in the cost
of seed in the bitter gourd. The seed quantity of tomato before FFS at the average was
208.77 gm/acre and after FFS it was 80gm/acre, reduced by 128.76gm/acre and has
significance difference in seed rate. Before FFS the farmer were using the broadcast
method for seed nursery sowing and a huge amount of seed was sown, after FFS the
farmer treated the seed bed with hot water, cover with plastic and sow the seed in line
which have a very good germination rate. The cost of tomato seed before FFS at the
average was Rs.1205.80 and after FFS was Rs.497.57 with a difference of Rs.708.23
which reduced and has significant difference in the seed cost.
Table 4.21 Seed quantity and cost of bitter gourd and tomato
crops Variable Before FFS After FF
S t- Value P- Value
Mean SD Mean SD
Bitter
Gourd
Seed quantity
in grams
386.8 71.28 400 0.000 -2.268 0.025
Cost of seed
in Rs
4134.00 2092.36 6057.07 109.67 -11.246 0.000
Tomato
Seed quantity
in grams
208.77 81.35 160.0 0.000 7.342 0.000
Cost of seed in
Rs 1205.80 627.23 995.13 28.02 4.114 0.000
Source: Field survey
79
4.22 Cropping practices
Seed treatment:
The seeds of bitter gourd were soaked in water for 24 hours and after soaking the seeds
were kept in farm yard manure for a day for good germination and then the seeds were
sown in polythene bags while the seeds of tomato were sown directly in the seed bed
without any chemical treatment. The seeds of bitter gourd were sown as 400 gm/acre for
one acre and the seed of tomato were sown as 160 gm/acre for one acre.
Nursery development:
In order to raise the nursery, for bitter gourd the polythene bags were filled with soil and
with well rottened farm yard manure. The seeds sown in polythene bags were covered
with plastic and treated with electric bulbs for heating. Or seeds sowed directly in raised
bed, covered with thin plastic and treated with electric bulb until germination. For
tomatoes beds of 20cm height and 1x3 m2 area were prepared. Twelve to fifteen beds
were necessary for raising nursery for 1 acre of field for tomatoes. Soil is exposed to light
and temperature to avoid possible diseases and pests attack in the plants. After the beds
preparation 20 kgs of FYM was applied per raised bed. After the application of water to
the bed cover with thin plastic sheets for raising the temperature without loss of moisture
and eradication of harmful bacteria and insects/pests.
Planting:
Forty five to 50 days old seedlings of bitter gourd were transplanted to field with spacing
of 300 cm between rows and 45 cm between plants. Seeds are sow on both sides of the
ridges. For tomatoes 30 to 35 days old seedlings were transplanted to field with spacing
of 100 cm between rows and 20 cm between plants. Seedlings are sow on both sides of
the channel.
Irrigation: Irrigation was required once within ten days depending on the weather and
soil conditions.
Table 4.22 Cropping practices being conducted in the study area
Location
Nursery sowing
time
Transplantation Plant to plant
Distance
Row to row
Distance
Before
FFS
After
FFS
Before
FFS
After
FFS
Before
FFS
After
FFS
Before
FFS
After
FFS
80
Charsadda
(Bitter
Gourd)
January Late
January
March March 60 cm 45
cm
240
cm
300
cm
Malakand
(Tomato)
January January February February 10.58
cm
20
cm
200
cm
100
cm
Source: Field survey
4.23 Management and cost of nutrients
Nutrients are essential element in vegetables farming usually and in bitter gourd
production particularly. The use of balanced fertilizer and suitable quantity of manure
maintains soil fertility and significantly increases the yield per acre (Ahmad and Buksh,
2004). Table 4.23 shows the total nutrients cost of bitter gourd, cost of fertilizer and cost
of farm yard manure. The cost of fertilizer before FFS was Rs.9363.87 and after FFS
Rs.7099.70, the cost of fertilizer was reduced by Rs.2264.10 per acre and the cost of farm
yard manure before FFS was Rs.7800.67 and after FFS Rs.9005.33 and the cost were
enhanced by Rs.1204.66 per acre. The uppermost softness is predictable for fertilizer,
however, the sign is negative implying that a one percent increase in the use of fertilizer
would reduce bitter gourd yield by 0.31 percent. This is due to the fact that most of the
bitter gourd growers were making use of only nitrogenous fertilizer and the use of this
type of fertilizer was higher than the recommended level (Shafiq and Rehman, 2000).
The total cost of nutrients for tomato, cost of fertilizer before FFS was Rs.4887.73 and
after FFS Rs.6436.60, which was increased by Rs.1548.87 and the cost of farm yard
manure before FFS was Rs.7514.6 and after FFS Rs.8666.0 which was enhanced by
Rs.1151.40 per acre. The result of fertilizers cost and use are in confirmation with the
findings of Ciszinszky, 1981.
Table 4.23 Cost of nutrients (Rs)
crops Variable Before FFS After FFS t-value p-value
Mean SD Mean SD
Bitter
Gourd
Cost of fertilizer 9363.87 3868.68 7099.70 240.99 7.193 0.000
Cost of FYM 7800.67 990.254 9005.33 966.887 -28.434 0.000
Tomato Cost of fertilizer 4887.73 1490.82 6436.60 1309.609 -9.240 0.000
Cost of FYM 7514.67 1196.88 8666.00 1171.291 -27.008 0.000
Source: Field survey
81
4.24 Crop protection practices for insect pest
It is a broad observation that diseases and insect/pests first attack the healthy plants.
Therefore the objective of natural methods is to grow crops which naturally protect
themselves against the attack of pests and diseases. Management of soil, moisture and
nutrient status is the first step in effective pest and disease management
(www.nabard.org). FFS aims to encourage the spread of improved practices in
agriculture through individual capacity building in addition to the environmental benefits
associated with attending FFS. IPM adoption reduced pesticides use by 78% without
affecting crop productivity, suggesting that a huge application of pesticides is needless.
Those farmers, who had educated about pests and predators ecology, attained the highest
reductions (Van Bruggen, 2006).
Aphids
The soft bodied aphids with the sucking mouth parts are commonly found in the large
colonies on the underside of the leaves of vegetable. Aphid feeding reduces the strength
of the plant and causes the leaves to curl down ward. The predators and natural enemies
keep the aphids under control by feeding on them, but the excessive use of insecticides
interrupts this natural control of aphids. In FFS method aphids were controlled by using
two teaspoons of bleaching powder in 16 liters of water. Best way to kill aphids and it
also prevents them from coming back. This spray actually works on all plants and is safe
for humans and other useful insect. Using resistant varieties of seeds, natural control, and
the sprays of neem oil or washing powder are good enough for organically certified crop.
Frequent applications are necessary for the best control. In Table 4.24 the data show that
the cost of farmers for the control of aphids in district Charsadda was Rs. 1313.23/acre
before FFS and Rs. 321.33/acre after FFS, which was reduced by Rs. 991.90/acre while
in district Malakand the cost before FFS was Rs. 1000.83/acre and after FFS it was Rs.
304.00 per acre, which was reduced by Rs. 696.83/acre with the application of cultural
and biological control.
White flies
Among the disturbing insects of agriculture, whitefly is a stunning breed of insects that
not only causes harm through feeding but also spreads plant diseases. The plant diseases
caused by whitefly are susceptible to the plants, and gets cut off quickly along with the
increase of whiteflies. The worry of the disease creates a huge defeat for the farmers
82
when it is left ignored. The cost of white fly control in district Charsadda before FFS was
Rs. 1059.07/acre and after FFS was Rs. 294.00/acre, which was reduced to the average
of Rs. 765.067/acre. While in district Malakand the cost of white flies control before FFS
was Rs. 625.83/acre and after FFS was Rs. 4.00 per acre, which was reduced by Rs.
621.83/acre. The removal of eggs is a confused job, and it can be done efficiently by
using Neem oil for this purpose. Neem oil being an organic product has the ability of
hindering the digestive action of whitefly and also can eliminate the white patches of
eggs that are lying. Spray of Neem oil twice a week frequently in the infected areas
controls the whiteflies.
Fruit fly
Fruit fly is the most dangerous to bitter gourd and is tough to control because its maggots
feed on the fruits from the within and safe from direct effect of insecticides. The gourd
should properly be enveloped to prevent the flies from laying eggs within the fruits, while
it is on the vine. When gourds are 2-3 cm in length a double layer paper bags or protecting
sheet should be used to safeguard the fruits against the fruit fly. The cost of fruit fly
control before FFS was Rs.1650.53/acre and after FFS it was
Rs.461.00/acre, which decreased at an average of Rs.1189.53/acre in district Charsadda.
Stem borer
Table 4.24 shows that the cost of stem borer before FFS was Rs.568.00/acre and after
FFS it was Rs.218.67/acre, which decreased at an average of Rs.349.33/acre in district
Charsadda.
Nematodes
Nematodes are tiny, nonsegmented round worms. Soilborne plant parasitic nematodes
spend most of their lives in the soil, either as external feeders on plant roots or as residents
inside roots. Nematodes affect crops by reducing plant vigor and growth. In an affected
field, some plant will be heavily infested and others will not, with the result that the
overall crop will mature unevenly or the quality of the produce will be lower. In soil,
plant parasitic nematodes either live freely or are present as eggs or durable cysts (Koike.
S. T et al, 2013). The data presented in Table 4.24, showing the cost of nematodes in
district Charsadda before FFS was Rs. 21.07/acre and after FFS it was Rs. 11.00/acre,
83
which reduced at an average of Rs. 10.07/acre, while in district Malakand the cost of
nematodes before FFS was Rs. 520.67/acre and after FFS was Rs.
241.07/acre, which reduced by Rs. 279.60/acre at an average.
Termites
The cost on termites control in district Charsadda before FFS was Rs. 83.40/acre and after
FFS it was Rs. 9.33/acre, which reduced at an average of Rs. 74.07/acre while in district
Malakand the cost on termites control before FFS was Rs. 331.10/acre and after FFS it
was Rs. 13.33/acre, which reduced by Rs. 317.7/acre at an average shown in Table 4.24.
Fruit borer
Fruit borer poses serious threats to tomato. To prevent damage to the crop by it, the
marigold should be grown in the vicinity to deviate the attention of the fruit borer. In case
the insect succeeds in laying eggs in the leaves of the plant tricho-grama card can be
applied. 4% solution of neem seed extract should be sprayed on plants at an interval of
15 days to control the intensity of pest. Natural control of pests, among other alternatives,
is one of the effective means for controlling pest problems in tomato. Biopesticides can
demolish pests, use of bio-pesticides is one of the most suitable and talented methods of
pest management (www.nabard.org). The cost on fruit borer control before FFS was Rs.
966.67/acre and after FFS it was Rs. 290.67/acre, which decreased at an average of Rs.
676.00/acre in district Malakand, shown in Table 4.24.
Table 4.24 Cost of crop protection (Rs) on insect pest
crops Variable Before FFS After FFS t- Value P- Value
Mean SD Mean SD
Bitter
Gourd
Aphids 1313.23 430.38 321.33 123.06 29.148 0.000
White Fly 1059.07 316.52 294.00 166.48 31.440 0.000
Fruit Fly 1650.53 882.29 461.00 290.68 20.507 0.000
Stem borer 568.00 367.98 218.67 151.67 14.852 0.000
Nematodes 21.07 90.05 11.00 46.66 2.71 0.000
Termites 83.40 250.45 9.33 80.56 4.395 0.000
Tomato
Aphids 1000.83 234.02 304.00 80.12 39.158 0.000
White Fly 625.83 191.65 4.00 34.53 40.29 0.000
Nematodes 520.67 165.69 241.07 92.01 23.550 0.000
84
Fruit Borer 966.67 427.67 290.67 93.29 20.784 0.000
Termites 331.10 222.44 13.33 46.22 17.741 0.000
4.25 Crop protection practices (Rs) for diseases control
Per acre yield was increased by protecting vegetables from the damage caused by disease
attack. The plant protection measures increases per acre yield by protecting vegetables
from the damage caused by disease attacks. The application of inputs should not be
realized in anticipation of appropriate plant protection measures are not carried out
(Ahmad and Baksh, 2004).
Blight
Blight is a widespread disease of vegetables which attacks the plant life at any growth
stage. The fungus causes blight and leaf spots by attacking the foliage. Early blight can
be seen regularly small black lesions on the affected plants where is the spots enlarge in
size unless they occupy one fourth of an inch in diameter, concentric rings of the spots
can be seen in the pattern of a bull eye. The high temperature and humidity are the main
factors of turning the tissues yellow near the spots and eventually causes the foliage killed
at dried up. The patterns of the Lesions on the stem are similar to those on the leaves, and
can cause the plant girdling if the blights occur near the soil surface. The contaminated
transplant by the late blight fungus can also damage the fruit, through the calyx or stem
attachment. Blight can be controlled by removing of the contaminated parts of the plant.
The disease can also be controlled by rotation of the crop (Gleason and Edmunds, 2013).
The cost on early blight control in bitter gourd before FFS was at the average of Rs.
1316.40/acre and after FFS it was at the average of Rs. 415.67/acre, which reduced at the
average of Rs. 900.73/acre, while for tomato the cost on early blight control before FFS
was at the average of Rs. 809.33/acre and after FFS it was Rs.314.00, which reduced at
the average of Rs. 495.33/acre. The cost on late blight control in bitter gourd before FFS
at the average of Rs. 1202.33/acre and after FFS was at the average of Rs. 405.67/acre
which reduced at the average of Rs. 796.66/acre, while for tomato the cost on late blight
control before FFS was at the average of Rs. 762.33/acre and after FFS at the average of
Rs. 289.00/acre which reduced at the average of Rs. 473.33/acre, shown in Table 4.25.
85
Viral
Viral disease is transmitted by whitefly. It is one of the most devastating diseases of
vegetables. Leaf curl disease is characterized by harsh stunting with down rolling and
crinkling of the leaves of the plants. The newly rising leaves show slight yellow
coloration and later on curling symptoms on them. Older leaves turn into tough and
fragile. The internodes and nodes are significantly condensed in size. The contaminated
plants seem whitish and fabricate more lateral branches giving a bushy appearance. The
contaminated plants stay underdeveloped. Viral diseases can be controlled by removing
and destroying of the affected plants. Examination of the white fly population is able to
decrease the disease occurrence as well (Gleason and Edmunds, 2013). The cost on viral
control for bitter gourd before FFS at the average was Rs. 916.00/acre and after FFS it
was at the average of Rs. 337.00/acre which reduced at the average of Rs. 579.00/acre;
while for tomato the cost on viral control before FFS was at the average of Rs.
845.67/acre and after FFS at the average of Rs. 2.00/acre which reduced at the average
of Rs. 843.67/acre shown in Table 4.25.
Fungal
Fungal diseases are a main problem of tomato crops. It can be understand and manage in
the field in three steps. The first one is to understand the cycle of the disease, the second
one is to identify symptoms of the disease, and the last third one is to apply cultural
practices for minimization the harm caused by the fungal. Fungi survive and get their
food from contaminated host tissue. Fungi reproduced by spores, which is tiny
microscopic and spread by water, wind or other means to a new host. Resting on the host,
spores develop and contaminate vigorous plant tissue causing symptoms including leaf
spots, rots, and wilts that lead to reduced yield. Spread of fungi in the field is determined
by moisture, temperature, humidity and rainfall.
Fungal disease can be controlled by using number of cultural practices for example.
Removal of plant debris; Suitable cleanliness measures can maintain spores from
infecting the subsequently crop; all tomato residue should be removed, discarded and
buried at the end of the season. Crop rotation also decrease disease occurrence (Andy,
2005).
86
The cost of fungal control in bitter gourd before FFS was at the average of Rs.654.90 and
after FFS it was at the average of Rs. 271.67/acre which reduced at the average of Rs.
383.23/acre; while for tomato the cost of fungal control before FFS was at the average of
Rs. 602.67/acre and after FFS it was at the average of Rs. 213.50/acre which reduced at
the average of Rs. 389.17/acre, shown in Table 4.25.
Soil borne
Soil borne plant pathogens can drastically reduce yield and quality in vegetables. These
pathogens usually pose long standing challenge because they lost long in soil and various
crops of vegetable can easily attacked by various species of pathogens surviving in the
soil. Pathogens are the biological agents that cause or incite the problem. Symptoms are
the visible reactions e.g., root decay, tissue discoloration, crown rot, wilting of foliage,
etc. (Koike et al., 2013). Removing infected plants and debris can also help break the
disease cycle and reduce the quantity of pathogens, thus slowing disease progress or
eliminating the pathogen source for subsequent plantings (Vallad and Amanda, 2013).
The cost of soil borne pathogen control for bitter gourd before FFS was at the average of
Rs. 30.93/acre and after FFS it was at the average of Rs. 15.00/acre which reduced at the
average of Rs. 15.93/acre; while for tomato the cost of soil borne pathogen control before
FFS was at the average of Rs. 626.00/acre and after FFS was at the average of Rs.
162.53/acre which reduced at the average of Rs.
463.47/acre, shown in Table 4.25.
Root rot
In root rot disease the roots of the affected plants appear water saturated with hollow dim
lesions. The crown of the plants becomes girdled and the whole plant is shrunken. Fungus
rots the fruits. Root rot can be controlled if the dead matters and leaves from the plants
remove. Clothes should be changed before entering the crop area, all system components
between crops should be sterilized and clean thoroughly. After the infected materials are
potentially handle, hands and other body parts that have come in contact with the infected
material should be properly washed, while dealing with potential or possible pathogens
or disease agents (Vaan and Spurlock, 2013). The cost of control of root rot disease in
bitter gourd before FFS at the average was Rs. 688.50/acre and after FFS it was at the
average of Rs. 193.13/acre which reduced at the average of Rs. 495.37/acre; while in
tomato the cost of root rot disease control before FFS was at the average of Rs.
87
380.67/acre and after FFS at the average was Rs. 127.60/acre which reduced at the
average of Rs. 253.07 /acre shown in Table 4.25.
Bacterial wilt
Bacteria cause serious diseases of crop, to which high soil moisture and temperature
contribute further. Bacterial symptoms in feature are the fast wilt and complete wilting
of normal crops and plants. Leaves that is located near the surface fall earlier than wilting.
Mostly vascular region are targeted by the pathogen, while in advance stage, the pathogen
can attack the pith and cortex region of plant, which cause yellow brown staining of leaf
tissue. White strip of bacteria can be seen coming out from cut split ends of infected plant
part when cut and wrapped up in clean water. By crop rotations bacterial diseases can be
controlled and restricted, and its result is effective in decreasing bacterial wilt of different
vegetables. Management of early seedling in the initial growth stage protects the
seedlings from wilt (Gleason and Edmunds, 2013). The cost of bacterial in bitter gourd
before FFS was at the average of Rs. 15.60/acre and after FFS it was at the average of
Rs. 5.33/acre which was reduced at the average of Rs. 10.27/acre, while in tomato the
cost of bacterial control before FFS was at the average of Rs. 320.67/acre and after FFS
was at the average of Rs. 110.73/acre which was reduced at the average of Rs.
209.94/acre shown in Table 4.25.
Table 4.25 Cost of crop protection (Rs) on diseases
Crops Variable Before FFS After FFS t-value p-value
Mean SD Mean SD
Bitter
Gourd
Early Blight 1316.40 495.26 415.67 110.08 23.539 0.000
Late Blight 1202.33 469.94 405.67 109.07 21.118 0.000
Viral 916.00 279.79 337.00 146.48 26.347 0.000
Fungal 654.90 328.39 271.67 119.62 17.617 0.000
Soil Borne 30.93 108.11 15.00 52.06 3.430 0.001
Root Rot 688.50 445.57 193.13 128.71 14.055 0.000
Bacterial 15.60 62.34 5.33 21.86 3.050 0.000
Tomato
Early Blight 809.33 165.31 314.00 83.77 37.018 0.000
Late Blight 762.33 139.14 289.00 85.70 40.663 0.000
Viral 845.67 195.92 2.00 24.49 52.208 0.000
Fungal 602.67 136.44 213.50 70.63 35.065 0.000
Soil Borne 626.00 394.79 162.53 93.07 14.108 0.001
Root Rot 380.67 144.22 127.60 72.53 26.159 0.000
Bacterial 320.67 133.76 110.73 69.06 23.683 0.000
88
Source: Field survey
4.26 Total cost of bitter gourd and tomato (Rs) before and after Farmer Field
School
The cost of seed before FFS was at the average Rs.4134 and after FFS the cost of seed
was increased by 1923.07 to Rs.6057.07. The cost was increased due to inflation in
market price of seed in Pakistan. The cost of tomato seed before FFS at the average was
Rs.1205.80 and after FFS at the average of Rs.497.57 with a difference of Rs.708.23
which reduced and have significant difference in the seed cost. The cost of fertilizer for
bitter gourd before FFS was Rs.9363.87 and after FFS was Rs.7099.70, the cost of
fertilizer was reduced by Rs.2264.10 and for tomato the cost of fertilizer before FFS was
Rs.4887.73 and after FFS was Rs.6436.60, which increased by Rs.1548.87. The cost of
farm yard manure for bitter gourd before FFS was Rs.7800.67 and after FFS was
Rs.9005.33 and the cost was enhanced by Rs.1204.66 while the cost of farm yard manure
for tomato before FFS was Rs.7514.6 and after FFS was Rs.8666.0, which was enhanced
by Rs.1151.40. The cost of insect pest control for bitter gourd before FFS was Rs.4695.30
and after FFS was Rs.1315.33 and the cost was reduced by Rs.3379.97
while the cost of insect pest control for tomato before FFS was Rs.3445.10 and after FFS
was Rs.853.00, which was decreased by Rs.2592.10. The cost of disease control for bitter
gourd before FFS was Rs.4824.66 and after FFS was Rs.1643.47 and the cost was
reduced by Rs.3181.19 while the cost of disease control for tomato before FFS was
Rs.4347.34 and after FFS was Rs.1219.36 which was decreased by Rs.3127.98.
Table 4.26 Total cost of bitter gourd and tomato (Rs) before and after FFS
Activity Cost of bitter gourd in Rs Cost of tomato in Rs
Before FFS After FFS Difference Before FFS After FFS Difference
Land prep 1670.80 1670.80 0.00 1632.55 1632.55 0.00
Seed 4134.00 6057.07 1923.07 1205.80 995.13 -210.67
Fertilizer 9363.87 7099.70 -2264.17 4887.73 6436.60 1548.87
FYM 7800.67 9005.33 1204.66 7514.67 8666.00 1151.33
Insect pest 4695.30 1315.33 -3379.97 3445.10 853.00 -2592.10
Diseases 4824.66 1643.47 -3181.19 4347.34 1219.36 -3127.98
Total cost 32489.30 26791.70 -5697.60 23033.19 19802.64 -3230.55
Income 225999.88 275588.00 49589.12 130285.70 175729.10 45443.40
89
Net income 55286.72 48673.95
4.27 Relationship between education level and yield of respondents before and
after FFS (Bitter gourd):
Association between education level of the respondents and yield after the application of
farmers field school approach is presented in Table 4.27. For finding association among
the two said particulars i.e. education level and yield, a Chi-square test was performed
both for before FFS approach and after FFS approach. The result of Chisquare test shows
that there was a highly significant (P<0.05) association among the education level of the
respondents and yield before Farmer Field School approach at a P-value of 0.006. While
that of after FFS approach the significance was at a p-value of (0.00). Moreover, we have
applied t-test for testing the difference of yield before and after FFS. The P-value is 0.000
which is less than 0.01 showing that there was highly significant improvement in yield
after FFS (Table 4.37). The summary statistics in
Table 4.37 reveals that the yield was much better after the FFS approach due to proper
transfer of improved methods among farming community. Though majority of the
respondents were illiterate followed by matric but with FFS approach a significant
change was seen which was due to the proper education regarding agricultural operations
and proper guidance given by the extension staff. Hence there was close relationship
among education level and yield after Farmer Field School approach application.
Table 4.27 Association between education level and yield of respondents after
FFS (Bitter gourd):
Yield after FFS (kg/acre)
Total
Education
level
10000-
15000 15100-20000
20100-
25000 Above 25000
Illiterate 14 (9.3) 12 (8.0) 7 (4.7) 1 (.7) 34 (22.7)
Primary 9 (6.0) 19 (12.7) 5 (3.3) 4 (2.7) 37 (24.7)
Middle 3 (2.0) 13 (8.7) 4 (2.7) 3 (2.0) 23 (15.3)
Matric 0 (.0) 13 (8.7) 17 (11.3) 10 (6.7) 40 (26.7)
Intermediate 0 (.0) 1 (.7) 5 (3.3) 3 (2.0) 9 (6.0)
Graduate 1 (.7) 1 (.7) 3 (2.0) 2 (1.3) 7 (4.7)
Total 27 (18.0) 59 (39.3) 41 (27.3) 23 (15.3) 150 (100)
Chi-square value= 46.503 P-value= 0.000; the value in parenthesis are percentage.
90
4.28 Relationship between education level and yield of respondents before and
after FFS (Tomato):
To seek out the relationship between the two attributes i.e. education level and yield of
respondents before and after the application of Farmers Field School approach
application, a Chi-square test was applied. Results of the Chi-square show that there was
non-significant association among the education level and yield of the farmers before
getting benefit from the Farmers Field School approach i.e. P-value is 0.325 which is
greater than 0.05 so no association existed. While after the application of FFS approach
the results shows highly significant (P<0.05) association among the education level and
yield, inspite of the fact that majority were illiterate and matric certificate holders (Table
4.28). We have also applied t-test to find out the difference in yield before and after FFS
at P-value (<0.05). Results shows highly significant difference in yield at p-value (0.000)
after FFS (Table 4.37). It is concluded from the summary statistics in Table 4.37 that the
improvement was because of the proper benefit from the Farmer Field School approach.
Table 4.28 Association between education level and yield after FFS (Tomato
kg/acre)
Education level
Yield after FFS (Tomato kg/acre)
Below 5000 5100-10000 10100-15000 15100-20000 Total
Illiterate 3 (2.0) 48 (32.0) 12 (8.0) 0 (.0) 63 (42.0)
Primary 0 (.0) 15 (10.0) 2 (1.3) 0 (.0) 17 (11.3)
Middle 3 (2.0) 9 (6.0) 7 (4.7) 0 (.0) 19 (12.7)
Matric 1 (.7) 20 (13.3) 20 (13.3) 2 (1.3) 43 (28.7)
Intermediate 0 (.0) 3 (2.0) 2 (1.3) 0 (.0) 5 (3.3)
Graduate 0 (.0) 3 (2.0) 0 (.0) 0 (.0) 3 (2.0)
Total 7 (4.7) 98 (65.3) 43 (28.7) 2 (1.3) 150 (100)
Chi-square Value=28.063 P-Value= 0.021; the value in parenthesis are percentage.
4.29 Relationship between farming experience and yield before and after FFS
(Bitter gourd)
Chi-square test was applied between farming experience and yield of bitter gourd before
and after the application of Farmers Field School approach. The test was applied at 5%
of significant level; results show that there was no association among the farming
experience and the yield of the respondents for bitter gourd crop. The result was
91
nonsignificant at p-value of 0.470 for before the Farming Field school approach
application, and was non-significant at p-value of 0.104 for after the application of the
Farming Field School approach, Table 4.29. So there is no relation among the experience
of the farmers and their yield before and after getting benefit from Farmers
Field School approach.
Table 4.29 Relationship between farming experience and yield after FFS (Bitter
gourd kg/acre)
Yield After FFS kg/acre
Total
Farming
Experience 10000-15000
15100-
20000
20100-
25000 Above 25000
6-10 4 (2.7) 7 (4.7) 7 (4.7) 1 (.7) 19 (12.7)
11-15 3 (2.0) 16 (10.7) 11 (7.3) 7 (4.7) 37 (24.7)
16-20 8 (5.3) 15 (10.0) 16 (10.7) 5 (3.3) 44 (29.3)
21-25 4 (2.7) 10 (6.7) 2 (1.3) 3 (2.0) 19 (12.7)
26-30 4 (2.7) 10 (6.7) 3 (2.0) 2 (1.3) 19 (12.7)
Above 31 4 (2.7) 1 (.7) 2 (1.3) 5 (3.3) 12 (8.0)
Total 27 (18.0) 59 (39.3) 41 (27.3) 23 (15.3) 150 (100)
Chi-square Value=22.139 P-Value= .104; the value in parenthesis are percentage.
4.30 Relationship between farming experience and income before and after
FFS (Bitter gourd)
For the purpose of finding the relationship between the farming experience and income
of the respondents from bitter gourd before and after Farmers Field School approach,
Chi-square test was performed at 5% significant level. Results of the test shows that there
was no significant relation among the farming experience and income before Farmers
Field School approach application because the P-value is greater than 0.05 i.e. 0.820.
While that of the relation after the Farmers field school approach the results was also
non-significant at p-value of 0.125, Table 4.30. It means that there is no association
relation among the farming experience and income of the respondents from bitter gourd
before and after the Farmers Field School approach.
92
Table 4.30 Relationship between farming experience and income after FFS
(Bitter gourd Rs/acre)
Income After FFS Rs/acre
Total
Farming
Experience 151000-200000
201000-
250000 Above 251000
6-10 2 (1.3) 3 (2.0) 14 (9.3) 19 (12.7)
11-15 2 (1.3) 0 (.0) 35 (23.3) 37 (24.7)
16-20 0 (.0) 5 (3.3) 39 (26.0) 44 (29.3)
21-25 1 (.7) 3 (2.0) 15 (10.0) 19 (12.7)
26-30 0 (.0) 3 (2.0) 16 (10.7) 19 (12.7)
Above 31 2 (1.3) 2 (1.3) 8 (5.3) 12 (8.0)
Total 7 (4.7) 16 (10.7) 127 (84.7) 150 (100.0)
Chi-square Value=15.189 P-Value= .125; the value in parenthesis are percentage.
4.31 Relationship between farming experience and yield before and after FFS
(tomato)
Chi-square test was performed in order to find out whether there was any significant
association between farming experience and yield of the respondents from tomato crop
before and after Farmers Field School approach application or not. Results of Chisquare
test show that there was no significant relation before and after the application of the
Farmers Field School approach. The result was non-significant at P-value of 0.170 for
before Farmers Field School approach and non-significant at P-value of 0.311 for after
Farmers Field School approach (Table 4.31).
Table 4.31 Relationship between farming experience and yield after FFS
(tomato kg/acre)
Yield After FFS kg/acre
Total Farming
Experience
Below
5000 5100-10000 10100-15000 15100-20000
6-10 2 (1.3) 4 (2.7) 3 (2.0) 0 (.0) 9 (6.0)
11-15 3 (2.0) 16 (10.7) 8 (5.3) 0 (.0) 27 (18.0)
16-20 0 (.0) 17 (11.3) 8 (5.3) 0 (.0) 25 (16.7)
21-25 0 (.0) 11 (7.3) 6 (4.0) 1 (.7) 18 (12.0)
26-30 0 (.0) 18 (12.0) 7 (4.7) 0 (.0) 25 (16.7)
Above 31 2 (1.3) 32 (21.3) 11 (7.3) 1 (.7) 46 (30.7)
93
Total 7 (4.7) 98 (65.3) 43 (28.7) 2 (1.3) 150 (100)
Chi-square Value=17.130 P-Value= .311; the value in parenthesis are percentage.
4.32 Relationship between farming experience and income before and after
FFS (tomato)
For seeking out the results of any significant or non-significant association between the
two particulars i.e. farming experience and income of the respondents or the tomato crop
before and after the application of the Farmers Field School approach, chi-square test
was applied. The results show that there was no significant relation among the farming
experience and income of the respondents both for before and after the Farmers Field
approach application because the P-values are greater than 0.05 i.e. 0.594 and 0.188 both
for before and after Farmers Field School approach application respectively, Table 4.32.
Table 4.32 Relationship between farming experience and income after FFS (tomato)
Income After FFS
Total Farming
Experience Below 75000 75000-150000
151000-
225000
226000-
300000
6-10 1 (.7) 3 (2.0) 5 (3.3) 0 (.0) 9 (6.0)
11-15 0 (.0) 9 (6.0) 14 (9.3) 4 (2.7) 27 (18.0)
16-20 0 (.0) 8 (5.3) 13 (8.7) 4 (2.7) 25 (16.7)
21-25 0 (.0) 3 (2.0) 10 (6.7) 5 (3.3) 18 (12.0)
26-30 0 (.0) 4 (2.7) 19 (12.7) 2 (1.3) 25 (16.7)
Above 31 1 (.7) 11 (7.3) 31 (20.7) 3 (2.0) 46 (30.7)
Total 2 (1.3) 38 (25.3) 92 (61.3) 18 (12.0) 150 (100)
Chi-square Value=19.601 P-Value= .188; the value in parenthesis are percentage.
4.33 Relationship between cropping pattern and adoption of respondents after
FFS (Bitter gourd):
Association between cropping pattern of the respondents and adoption after the
application of farmer’s field school approach is presented in table 4.33. For finding
association among the two said particulars i.e. cropping pattern and adoption of FFS, a
Chi-square test was performed. The results of Chi-square test shows that a significant
(P<0.05) association existed among the cropping pattern of the respondents and adoption
of Farmer Field School approach at P-value of 0.058. The significance of association
among cropping pattern and adoption of FFS approach means that the adoption of best
cropping pattern was due to proper transfer of improved methods among farming
94
community. Though majority of the respondents were illiterate followed by matric but
with FFS approach a significant change was seen which was due to the proper education
regarding agricultural operations and proper guidance given by the extension staff. Hence
there was close relationship among cropping pattern and adoption after Farmer Field
School approach application.
Table 4.33 Association between cropping pattern and adoption of FFS (Bitter
gourd)
Adopt FFS
Total Cropping pattern after
FFS number Yes Some extent
Four crops 33 (53.2) 29 (46.8) 62 (100)
Five crops 27 (38.6) 43 (61.4) 70 (100)
Six crops 12 (66.7) 6 (33.3) 18(100)
Total 72 (48.0) 78 (52.0) 150 (100)
Chi-square Value=5.684 P-Value= 0.058; the value in parenthesis are percentage.
4.34 Relationship between cropping pattern and adoption of respondents after
FFS (Tomato)
To seek out the relationship between the two attributes i.e. cropping pattern and adoption
of Farmers Field School approach by respondents, a Chi-square test was applied. Results
show that there was non-significant association among the cropping pattern and adoption
of FFS farmers after getting benefit from the Farmers Field School approach i.e. P-value
is 0.373 which is > 0.05 so no association was existed (Table 4.34). The results are non
significant which might be due to the reasons that majority of the farmers were illiterate
which is a big hurdle in proper application of modern methods and secondly there
irrigation big problem of irrigation. Due to irrigation problem all other agricultural
operations e.g. fertilizers application, insect pest management was affected which results
in non significant change in cropping pattern.
Table 4.34 Association between cropping pattern and adoption of FFS (Tomato)
Cropping
pattern after
FFS
Adopt FFS Total
Yes some extent
Three crops 5 (38.5) 8 (61.5) 13 (100)
95
Four crops 65(47.4) 72(52.6) 137 (100)
Total 70 (46.7) 80 (53.3) 150 (100)
Chi-square Value=.385 P-Value= 0.373; the value in parenthesis are percentage.
4.35 Regression analysis for the effect of educational level on the yield of bitter
gourd before and after Farmer Field School (FFS)
Regression analysis was performed to check out the effect of different levels of education
over the yield of bitter gourd. Data in Table 4.35a shows that before the application of
Farmers Field School approach the constant yield of 14690.735 was observed for all
illiterate respondents while slight increase was observed as the education category
increases i.e. respondents that were primary have a yield of 16030.42 followed by middle
(17215.91), Graduate (19504.29), matric (19705.49) while maximum increase was
observed in yield of those respondents who were intermediates (21187.78). After the
application of FFS approach a significant difference was found for all education
categories showing the effect of Farmers Field School approach. Data in table 4.35b
depicts that the constant yield for all respondents that were illiterate was 15507.059.
Yield of those respondents whose literacy level was primary were 16632.08 followed by
the education category of middle (18050.22), graduate (20708.57), matric (21194.15)
while maximum yield of 22313.33 was observed for the respondents who were
intermediate. As Smooth increase was not observed for the respondents who were
graduate this might be due to lack of interest in agricultural farming. From the
comparison of education levels of respondents before and after Farmers Field School
approach over the yield of bitter gourd, significant increase was observed for all
education levels.
Table 4.35a Regression analysis for the effect of educational level on the yield
of bitter gourd before Farmer Field School (FFS)
Model
Un-standardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
T Sig. B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant)
Primary
Middle
14690.735 695.949 21.109 .000
1339.681 970.455 .127 1.380 .170
2525.178 1095.598 .201 2.305 .023
96
Matric
Intermediate
Graduate
5014.753 941.274 .494 5.328 .000
6497.042 1521.215 .341 4.271 .000
4813.550 1684.304 .225 2.858 .005
a. Dependent Variable: Yield per acre before FFS
Table 4.35b Regression analysis for the effect of educational level on the yield of
bitter gourd after Farmer Field School (FFS)
Model
Un-standardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant)
Primary
Middle
Matric
Intermediate
Graduate
15507.059 742.669 20.880 .000
1125.025 1035.603 .098 1.086 .279
2543.159 1169.146 .187 2.175 .031
5687.088 1004.463
1623.336
.518 5.662 .000
6806.275 .330 4.193 .000
5201.513 1797.373 .224 2.894 .004
a. Dependent Variable: Yield per acre after FFS
4.36 Regression analysis for the effect of educational level on the yield of tomato
before and after the Farmer Field School (FFS)
To find out the effect of educational levels of respondents over the yield of tomato before
and after the application of Farmers Field school approach, regression analysis was
performed. It was observed that the constant yield of tomato for all illiterate respondents
was 7333.810. where-as maximum increase was observed in yield of those respondents
who were matric (8471.4) followed by the respondents who were intermediate (7910),
graduate (7691.67), middle (7545) while slight decrease was observed in the tomato yield
of respondents who were from the literacy level of primary i.e. (6900) which might be
due to their negligence to proper maintain and take a good care of their crop (Table
4.36a). While after the application of Farmers Field School approach the constant value
i.e. yield of 8714.524 was observed for all illiterate respondents while that in other
97
categories of education of the respondents, maximum yield was observed for the
respondents who were matric i.e. 10452.8 followed by education level of intermediate
(9814), graduate (9075), middle (8894.74) while decrease was observed in the yield of
respondents who were primary i.e. 8444.41 Table (4.36b). From the comparison of
education levels of respondents before and after the application of Farmers Field School
approach over the yield of tomato, significant increase was observed for all education
levels.
Table 4.36a Regression analysis for the effect of educational level on the yield of
tomato before Farmer Field School (FFS)
Model
Un-standardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant)
Primary
Middle
Matric
Intermediate
Graduate
7333.810 212.347 34.537
.942
.479
3.412
.736
.359
.000
433.810 460.646 .079 .348
211.190 441.140 .040 .633
1137.586 333.400 .296 .001
576.190 783.098 .059 .463
357.857 995.997 .029 .720
a. Dependent Variable: Yield per acre before FFS
Table 4.36b Regression analysis for the effect of educational level on the yield of
tomato after Farmer Field School (FFS)
Model
Un-standardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant)
Primary
Middle
8714.524 255.109 34.160
.488
.340
.000
270.112 553.409 .040 .626
180.213 529.975 .028 .734
98
Matric
Intermediate
Graduate
1738.267 400.539 .368 4.340
1.169
.301
.000
1099.476 940.795 .092 .244
360.476 1196.567 .024 .764
a. Dependent Variable: Yield per acre after FFS
4.37 Yield of the crops
This was based on comparison of yield of crops before and after FFS so paired t- test or
paired sample difference was perform to each crop individually to test the significances.
The collected data were sorted properly before the analysis with the help of SPSS. Simple
data analysis was performed i.e. frequency distribution and cross tabulation and paired t-
test as presented in Table 4.37. The average yield of bitter gourd in district Charsadda
before FFS was 17384.60 Kgs/acre and after FFS was 18372.60 Kgs/acre with an
increase of 988 Kgs/acre. The results of increase in yield after the application of FFS
approach is in confirmation with the finding of (Palada, 2003), while in district Malakand
the average yield of tomato before FFS were 7663.87 Kgs/acre and after FFS were
9248.90 Kgs/acre with an increase of 1585.03 Kgs/acre. The results are in conformity
with that of (Saleem et al., 2009 and Le strange et al., 2000). Based on the t- tabulated
value analyzed at 0.05% level of significance, Farmers Field School has a significant
effect over the crop yield per acre of the farmers.
Table 4.37 Yield of the crops (paired t-test value/result)
Crops Variable Before FFS After FFS t-
Value
P-
Value Mean SD Mean SD
Bitter
Gourd
Yield 17384.60 4537.12 18372.60 4912.27 -
10.702
0.000
Tomato Yield 7663.87 1746.45 9248.90 2145.38 -
21.342
0.000
Source: Field survey
4.38 Income of the farmers
As the study was based on profit maximization margin per acre before and after FFS so
paired t-test or paired sample difference was performed to each crop individually to test
the significances. The collected data were analyzed with the help of suitable computer
software (SPSS), simple data analysis including frequency distribution, cross tabulation
99
and paired t-test were performed as shown in the Table 4.38. The average income of bitter
gourd farmers in district Charsadda before FFS was Rs. 225999.88/acre and after FFS
were Rs. 275589.0/acre. The income was increased with an average of Rs. 49589.12/acre.
In district Malakand the average income of farmers before FFS was Rs.130285 and after
FFS were Rs.175729.1/acre with an increase of Rs.45443.4/acre. Based on the t -
tabulated value analyzed at 0.05% level of significance, farmers having farmer field
school (FFS) approach were found to have significant effect over their income.
Table 4.38 Income of the farmers
Crops Variable Before FFS After FFS t- Value P- Value
Mean SD Mean SD
Bitter
Gourd
Income 225999.88 58982.60 275589.0 73684.02 -29.020 0.000
Tomato Income 130285.7 29689.73 175729.1 40762.23 -30.253 0.000
Source: Field survey
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary
The present summary is based on earlier discussion presented in different chapters. This
study was carried out in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. The population for
this study consists of total number of FFS members in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. For the
convenience of the researcher multistage sampling method was used for the present
study. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province and Provincial agricultural extension department
established FFSs from 2004-2009 in all the 25 districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through
trained facilitators. Of 25 districts, two districts Charsadda and Malakand were selected
purposively. One tehsil from each selected district was selected purposively i.e., tehsils
Charsadda and Dargai. Five union councils were purposively selected from each selected
tehsil. From each union council two villages were purposively selected. Fifteen
respondents were randomly selected from each FFS on the basis of 60% of the total
population of FFS members. The total sample size was 300 respondents. Data were
collected from the FFSs conducted on Tomato and Bitter Gourd crops of the study area,
because a lot of FFS were established on these crops. Research was based on primary as
well as secondary data. Primary data were collected from the farmers for the study area
and secondary data from agriculture extension department and various unpublished
/published materials. Interview schedule was developed for gathering concrete and
complete information. The researcher has personally interviewed each respondent.
100
During the interview process purpose of the study was also explained to the respondents
to remove any suspicion about the information to be collected. The collected data were
transferred to computer and then analyzed with the help of (SPSS) version 16. Simple
data analysis including cross tabulation and frequency distribution was performed. The
study was based on comparison of the yields of tomato and bitter gourd before and after
FFS, a paired t-test was performed for each crop calculated individually to test the
significant difference at 5% level of probability.
Age affects both positively and negatively the behavior of the individuals. It is the age
which determines the response of a person while he performs different activities in his
life. It has been accepted that age, creativity and adoptability are positively interlinked.
It means that the younger a person is the more rapidly he will be his adopt and respond
to any activity, particularly. 245 respondents, who make 81% of the total being 300, were
young.
Education is considered to play a fundamental role in human resource development.
Education in general is to acquire new knowledge and skills and the habits of a particular
group of people are usually transferred from one generation to another through various
means such is training, research or self-directed learning. The data display that (67.7 %)
of the sample was educated and (32.3 %) had no education. (27.7 %) of the educated
section of the sample were matriculated; 14% had middle and 18% had primary education
who were expected to adopt new farmer field school approach and agricultural
technology rapidly.
Household size, the number of dependent children and old age people, negatively affects
the socio economic development. The larger household size, the more will be the
expenses. Hence, less will be the investment in agricultural activities. Majority 59.0 %
respondents have the family size of 6-10 members and 17 % having the family size of
11-15. The data revealed that most of the respondents belonged to huge house hold due
to joint family system.
Productivity of the farmers is fundamentally dependent of farming experience. More
experience makes the farmers to take feasible and possible actions for the crops. In
farming experience many factors are involved which are own views, public judgment,
technology adoption, change agent and marketing. However, 139 respondents had
farming experience for more than 20 years and the remaining 161 had less than 20 years.
101
The farmers who had medium size land could efficiently benefit from the FFS approach,
but the farmers who had small land, limitedly, benefited from this approach. Land was
categorized into four different categories i.e. area owned, lease in, lease out and
culturable waste. The farmers of district Charsadda contained the total land of 1483 acres.
Out of which 939 acres were the owned land of farmers, 491acres were lease in and 53
acres were the culturable waste, no big landlord farmers were identified in district
Charsadda that lease out the land. In district Malakand the total land contained by the
farmers were 971 acres, out of which 713 acres were owned land, 183 acres were lease
in and 75 acres were Culturable waste. In district Malakand no large landlord farmer was
identified that land lease out for farming practices. Land holding size has a positive
connection with the adoption of innovations.
The major reason of the leading position of the agriculture in the country’s economy is
its good irrigation system. In the study area, there were found two types of irrigation
systems i.e. canal irrigation and tube wells irrigation system. There were total 1483 acres
of land in district Charsadda, out of which 1430 acres were irrigated and 53 acres were
unirrigated. The main source of irrigation was found canal system in district Charsadda.
In district Malakand both canal and tube wells irrigation systems were used for irrigation
purposes. The total area of tomato grower FFS participants were 971 acres, out of which
896 acres were irrigated and 75 were unirrigated.
Cropping pattern chiefly determined the productivity enhancement. After the training of
farmer field school, the farmers were aware of the need and importance of cropping
system. In FFS the farmers were encouraged to grow more crops in a piece of land.
Intercropping was encouraged in FFS. Major crops were protected when the other crops
were intercropped. The second crop work as a repellent. Data show that the farmers were
adopted the cropping system and grow more crops than before. In district Charsadda
majority (41.3 %) respondents grow four crops after FFS, (46.7 %) respondents growing
five crops and only (12 %) respondents grow six crops after FFS. In district Malakand
three crops grower were (9 %). Four crops growers were (91 %) after FFS. No respondent
was found that grow five and six crops.
The behaviors of an individual play a key role in dissemination of information. The data
revealed that the total (63.3 %) respondents told that they know the extension personnel
102
and met them in field, (9.7 %) respondents met with extension personnel in their office,
(19.7 %) in village and (7.3 %) made a phone call in the study area.
Farmers kept on visiting the office of the extension personnel for seeking any new
knowledge and information necessary to tackle the problems they face in cropping. The
data show that (60 %) FFS respondents have visited the office of extension
personnel/facilitator and (40 %) did not in the study area. Out of (60 %) respondents (14.3
%) visited the office weekly, (27.7 %) monthly and (17.3 %) yearly. Out of those
respondents who did not visit the office, (13.0 %) told that they have no time to visit the
office, (18.3 %) said no need to go and (7.7 %) respondents gave other reasons.
Extension personnel/facilitators play important role in the farmer’s community. The
position and status of a person is always taken into account in decision making, no matter
which ever discipline it is. The data indicate that (60 %) respondents met with extension
personnel in their offices. Out of these (60 %) respondents, (9 %) met with subject matter
specialists/plant protection officers, (27 %) met with agriculture officers and (24 %) met
with field assistants, while the rest (40 %) respondents did not visit and did not meet with
extension personnel in their offices in the study area.
One of the main activities of extension personnel is to visit the field of farming
community and to educate them and provide them solution of their day to day problems
and get feedback from them. Data regarding visit of extension personnel in the study area
showed that agriculture officer visited the fields of (56 %) respondents and (44 %)
respondents responded that field assistant visited their fields.
The FFS staff must extend extra cooperation to farmers beside the duties assigned to them
by the department concerned. They should develop a cordial relation with the FFS
member farmers to disseminate the agricultural information effectively. Data regarding
the visit of extension personnel indicate that (39.7 %) respondents told that the extension
personnel visited their fields weekly, (44.7 %) had responded that the extension personnel
visited their fields monthly and (15.7 %) answered that the extension personnel visited
their fields yearly and no one were identified that his field was visited daily in the study
area. All the respondents answered that the extension personnel visited their
demonstration field regularly on weekly based after the establishment of FFS for the agro
eco-system analysis (AESA).
103
Dissemination of information is a center principle of extension program. The information
should be disseminated in such a way that it should be used by the agriculture producer
in the best possible manner. The data indicate that there were two methods used for the
dissemination of information, individual and group methods. In the study area, (24.7 %)
farmers answered that the method used for information dissemination was individual,
(75.3 %) said that group method was used for the dissemination of information and no
one used mass method.
Extension approach refers to the principle for an organization, which informs, stimulates
and guides such aspects of the organization as its structure, mission, vision, leadership,
its programs, strategies, its resources and linkages. The data regarding the approaches
which were being implemented in the field in the study area, (37.7 %) farmers responded
that conventional approach was used other then FFS and (62.3 %) farmers responded that
participatory technology development and dissemination approach was used other than
FFS.
The availability of suitable place is one of the prerequisite conditions for carrying out
FFS activities properly. Keeping the same point in view, various questions were asked
about the availability of places of contact. Usual contacts of extension personnel with
farmers were categorized in four different categories, of which the most convenient and
feasible contacts were farm, home/Hujra, Mosque “Masjid” and office. Data regarding
the contact show that majority respondents (47 %) were contacted in farm followed by
(32 %) respondents at office, (9 %) at home/Hujra and only (12 %) were contacted in
Masjid in the study area.
Under different agro ecosystem the FFS program is very effective. The data show that
the present extension services and farmer field school were effective in the study area.
The number of respondents (67.3 %) at high level of effectiveness, (32.7 %) respondents
was in medium level of effectiveness and no one was found at lower level.
The ever growing population of the country is always posed challenges to the agricultural
scientist of the country. Tackling this challenge of feeding the huge population of the
country needs to design a comprehensive program which goes beyond the mere
dissemination of agricultural technologies in the farmers. They need to be educated in
the use of these technologies, in marketing and advocacy in such a way that enables the
farmers to seek solution to their problems. The data provide information about the
104
responses of farmers about the adoption of FFS approach; it shows that a (47.3 %)
respondent were in favour of adopting FFS approach while the respondents adopting the
FFS activities in some extent in future were (52.7 %).
Land preparation and crop establishment go hand and hand; proper tillage help the crop
emerge properly, stand uniformly which leads to a good crop yield. The data regarding
tillage show that in the study area all the respondents used plough for land preparation,
(43.3 %) respondents used rotivator along with plough.
The use of a recommended variety of seed plays an essential role in agricultural
productivity. It is a proved fact that those farmers who used a recommended variety
usually produce higher yield per acre. Data show that average quantity of bitter gourd
seed were increased by 13.20 gm/acre for one acre after FFS and the cost of seed were
increased by Rs.1923.07. The data show high significance in the cost of seed in the bitter
gourd. The seed quantity of tomato was reduced by 128.76 gm/acre and has significance
difference in seed rate. The cost of tomato seed was reduced Rs.708.23 which have
significant difference in the seed cost.
Different cropping practices were implemented by farmers in the fields. Growing the
nursery, for bitter gourd the polythene bags were filled with soil and well rotten farm
yard manure. The seeds sown in polythene bags covered with plastic and treated with
electric bulbs until germination. For tomatoes beds of 20 cm height and 1x3 m2 area were
prepared. Twelve to 15 raise beds were needed for a nursery sufficient for planting 1 acre
of tomatoes. For bitter gourd 45 to 50 days-old plants were transplanted to the field.
Plants were transplanted in fields in rows with row spacing of 300 cm and 45 cm between
plants to plant spacing. Seeds were sown on both sides of the ridges. For tomatoes 30 to
35 days-old plants were used for transplantation. Plants were transplanted in field with
row spacing of 100 cm and 20 cm between plants to plant. Seedlings were sown on both
sides of the ridges. Irrigation was applied to the field once in ten days depending on the
weather and soil conditions.
Fertilizers play a key role in vegetable productivity in generally, and in bitter gourd, in
particular. The use of balanced fertilizer and suitable quantity of manure maintains soil
fertility and significantly increase the yield per acre. The cost of fertilizer was reduced
by Rs.2264.10 and the cost of farm yard manure the cost was enhanced by Rs.1204.66.
The total cost of nutrients for tomato, cost of fertilizer increased by Rs.1548.87 and the
105
cost of farm yard manure which enhanced by Rs.1151.40. The uppermost softness is
predictable for fertilizer, however, the sign is negative implying that a one percent
increase in the use of fertilizer would reduce bitter gourd yield by 0.31 percent. This is
due to the fact that most of the bitter gourd growers were making use of only nitrogenous
fertilizer and the use of this type of fertilizer was higher than the recommended level.
It has been observed that insects, pests and diseases first attack the healthy plants. We
therefore, need to grow crops through organic methods which are naturally resistant to
these attacks from pests and diseases. The cost of insect pest was reduced by applying
cultural, mechanical and biological control methods. The farmers become aware of the
nature of insect pest and their management measure. The farmers avoid the chemical and
encourage and use the biological methods of controlling the pests. In bitter gourd the cost
of insect pest was reduced by Rs.3379.97 per acre and in tomato the cost was reduced by
Rs.2592.10 per acre which shows significant difference in the cost. Protecting plants
against the damage caused by diseases, insect and pest attack increases per acre yield.
The cost of bitter gourd was reduced by Rs.3181.19 and the cost of tomato was reduced
by Rs.3127.98 which shows significant difference in the cost of diseases.
Association between education level of the respondents and yield of bitter gourd after the
application of farmers field school approach, a chi-square test was performed both for
before FFS approach and after FFS approach. The results of the tests conducted on the
chi-square show a highly significant (P<0.05) association existed among the education
level of the respondents and yield before Farmer Field School approach at a P-value of
0.006. While that of after FFS approach the significance was at a (p-value 0.0000) which
shows that the yield was much better after the FFS approach due to proper transfer of
improved methods among farming community. Though majority of the respondents (32.3
%) were illiterate followed by matric but with FFS approach a significant change was
seen which was due to the proper education regarding agricultural operations and proper
guidance given by the extension staff. Hence there was close relationship among
education level and yield after Farmer Field School approach application. There was no
significant relationship between farming experience and yield, age and yield of the bitter
gourd growers.
To seek out the relationship among the two attributes i.e. education level and yield of
tomato respondents before and after the application of Farmers Field School approach
106
application, a chi-square test was applied. Results of the chi-square show that there was
non-significant association among the education level and yield of the farmers before
getting benefit from the Farmers Field School approach i.e. P-value is 0.325 which is
>0.05 so no association existed. While after the application of the FFS approach the
results were improved. There was a highly significant (P<0.05) association among the
education level and yield, inspite of that majority were illiterate and matric degree
holders. The improvement was because of the proper benefit from the Farmer Field
School approach. There were no significant relationship between farming experience and
yield, age and yield of the tomato growers.
The paired t- test was applied to compare the yield of crops before and after FFS, the data
collected were sorted properly with help of SPSS and the average yield of bitter gourd
was increased by 988 Kgs. The average yield of tomato was increased by 1585.03 Kgs.
Farmers Field School have a significant effect over the crop yield of the farmers per acre.
The average income of bitter gourd farmers was increased with an average Rs. 49589.12.
In tomato the average income of farmers was increased by Rs.45443.4.
5.2 Conclusions
• From the above discussion it is concluded that the activities of FFS approach are
beneficial, useful and enhanced agricultural productivity particularly for bitter
gourd and tomato. The role of FFS initiated by the department of agricultural
extension for the development of agriculture can be highly appreciated.
Department of agriculture extension has brought about a positive change in the
livelihood of the farmers of the study area through an approach of non-formal
participatory FFS by encouraging growing multiple crops.
• It is concluded that interaction of extension agents with farmers not only helps to
increase awareness among the farming community but it also propagates new
approach as a useful tool namely FFS. Through FFS approach the interaction of
farmers and extension personnel becomes stronger; the extension personnel
regularly visited the farming community for their problems’ solution. The
response of farmers was highly effective towards the FFS approach. Forty seven
percent of the respondents adopted the FFS approach fully and 53% up to some
extent.
107
• It is further concluded that FFS approach enables the farmers to utilize inputs at
the right time and in required amount, whereas it also enables the farmers to use
different crop management practices like land preparation, nursery development,
quality seeds, recommended dose of fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides, herbicides
to reduce the cost of seeds, insects pests, diseases and nutrients.
• Under the FFS approach farmers not only improve their socio-economic
conditions but also know how profit can be maximized through this approach.
FFS has increased in the yield and income of bitter gourd and tomato growers.
• An awareness of the FFS was created through formal and informal method and
this is how the farmers became empowered. Facilitator was skilled and practical
oriented and trained the farmers through learning by doing process. Farmers were
able to take feasible decisions on time whenever they face problems in their field
crops.
• It is concluded that FFS approach serves as platform for collective action. It was
also observed that the transfer of new and improved practices about tomato and
bitter gourd crops took place from FFS participants to non-FFS participants.
• Simplification of the FFS program content will not only help improve the
performance of participants but also enhance the possibility of diffusion of new
knowledge among other farmers. Diffusion can also be increased by employing
dissemination approaches.
• The results of this study have proven that the FFS methodology is a very effective
tool for enlightening farmers learning, capacity building and knowledge
empowerment. They encourage farmers to develop their critical thinking and
make sound farm management decisions, resulting in adoption of improved
technologies.
• There were 34% of the respondents who reported that their source of information
regarding participation in the FFS was fellow farmers, 66% got information for
participation in FFS from agricultural extension personnel, and no one got
information for participation in FFS from agricultural research staff and mass
media.
108
5.3 Recommendations
The following recommendations were formulated on the basis of the research conducted.
• Agriculture extension department ought to extend developmental activities
through participatory FFS approach to rural masses that have not been
accessed so far.
• FFS should be established to create awareness and enhance the knowledge
of the majority of farmers in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
• Farmers should be aware of the ecology of crops and should apply IPM
technologies to minimize the fatal affects of pesticides on vegetables.
• The facilitator should be practical oriented and more skilled so that the
farmers are able to fully adopt FFS approach.
• The FFS approach should be extended to the unexplored parts of the country,
especially of the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa as an increase in yield
and decrease in input cost was observed in the present study.
• FFS technology is being adopted by the farming communities and requires
further trainings and refresher courses so that the process be continued and
become sustainable.
• The department of Agricultural extension should pay more emphasis on
holding seminars and exhibition for dissemination of agricultural technology
not only to FFS registered farmers but a large portion of non-registered FFS
farmers as well.
• Farmer Field School approach should be made a part of the mandate of
agricultural extension.
• A manual for Farmer Field School should be developed by agricultural
university in coordination with agricultural extension department for further
guide line in establishment of FFS.
109
• Agricultural inputs have a positive impact on the enhancement of crop yield
and hence, it is recommended and it is the demand of the farmers that quality
inputs are provided to them at their doorsteps.
• FFS is an out of school education and based on adult education therefore, a
focus on underline principle that allow farmers to derive and adopt
recommendations within their own dynamic ecological, social and economic
realities.
• Farmers should understand the responsibilities of FFS member farmers and
must take interest in FFS activities.
• Facilitator should conduct a fallow up in adequate time to addressed farmers’
problems in order to get higher, quality production.
110
LITERATURE CITED
Abbas, M., T. E. Lodhi, A. Bashir, and M. Ather. 2008. Dissemination of wheat
production technology and interface of outreach efforts with farmers. Journal of
agricultural research. 46 (1). Available at http://www.jar.com.pk
/displayprods.asp. Date of retrieval February 10, 2013.
Abbas. M., T. E. Lodhi, K. M. Aujla, and S. Saadullah. 2009. Pak. j. life soc. sci.
Agricultural Extension Programs in Punjab, Pakistan. 7(1): 1-10
Abdel Rahman, A.M. and Hamid M.E. 2012. “Impact of FFS on farmer's adoption of
IPM options for tomato: a case study from the Gezira State, Sudan”, International
Journal of Development and Sustainability, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 338– 349.
Adalid, A. M., S. Rosello and F. Nuez. 2004. Breeding tomatoes for their high nutritional
value. Rec. Res. Dev. In pl. Sci. 2: 33-52.
Adams, M. E. 1994. Agricultural extension in developing countries. Intermediate tropical
agricultural services, Longman scientific and technical, Harlu, Essex, England.
Ahmad. B, and K. Baksh. 2004. Profitability of vegetable
cultivation. http://www.google.com/ archives.dawn.com. Date of retrieval
March 25, 2013.
Akhtar, M. J. 1990. Evaluation of working of the training and visit system of agriculture
department in tehsil Mailsi, district Vehari. M.Sc. Rural sociology. Thesis,
University of Agriculture, Faisalabad.
Ali, T. 1991. An identification and validation of job performance competencies needed
by Agricultural extension field assistants in Faisalabad District, Punjab, Pakistan.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, USA.
Andy. 2005. Diagnosing and Controlling Fungal Diseases of Tomato in the Home
Garden. Rutgers cooperative research & extension n.j. Agricultural experiment
station Rutgers, the State university of New Jersey, New Brunswick. FS 547.
Arbab, I. U. 1989. Tube well irrigation and green revolution in the NWFP. IDS, NWFP
Agric. Univ., Peshawar.
111
Arif. H., and P. Ashraf. 2000. Insecticide-free cotton is feasible and profitable.
AgroChemicals News in Brief. 23(4): 35-36.
Baily. K. D. 1982. Methods of Social Research. 2nd Ed. New York. Macmilian Publishing
Co., Inc.
Bajwa. M. S., M. Ahmad, and T. Ali. 2010. An analysis of effectiveness of extension
methods used in farmers field school approach for agricultural extension work
in Punjab, Pakistan. Journal of Agriculture Research. 48 (2):
259 – 265.
Bajwa. M. S., M. Ahmad, T. Ali, and M. Z. Iqbal. 2008. Effectiveness of farmer field
school (FFS) approach for information dissemination of agricultural technology
in Punjab. Journal of Agricultural Research. 46 (3): 291-297.
Ban, A. W. V-den., R. K. Samanta (2006) Changing Roles of Agricultural extension in
Asian Nations. B R Publish in corporations. pp. 24.
Basant. R. 1988. Indigenous knowledge and technology diffusion: A case of
agromechanical technology in Gujrat. The Gujrat institute of area planning.
Working paper No. 16. March. Ahmadabad. 1- 15.
Bentley, J. W.; Rodriguez, G.; Gonzalez, A. (1994) Science and people: Honduran
compassions and natural pest control inventions. Agriculture & Human Values,
11: 178-183.
Bhatt, P. N. 2005. Performance of Farmers Field School (Ffs) Approach in promoting
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) technology in Chitwan Nepal. M.Sc thesis,
Department of agricultural Extension and Rural Sociology, IAAS, Rampur
Chitwan, Nepal. Pp. 90.
Birner, R., K. Davis, J. Pender, E. Nkonya, P. Anandajayasekeram, J. Ekboir, A. Mbabu,
D.J. Spielman, D. Horna, D.S. Benin, and W. Kisamba-Mugerwa. 2006. from
“best practice” to “best fit”: A framework for analyzing pluralistic agricultural
advisory services worldwide. International Service for National Agricultural
Research Discussion Paper 5. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy
Research Institute.
112
Braun, A. R., G. Thiele, and M. Fernandez. 2000. Farmer field schools and local
agricultural research committees: complementary platforms for integrated
decision-making in sustainable agriculture. Network Paper Agricultural Research
and Extension Network. Pp. 105-111.
Canama, C. C., V. A. Cabornay, and A.A. Fajardo. 2003. Assessment of the integrated
pest management farmer field school and the farmers' response to its
recommended practices in corn production in Bukidnon [Philippines].
Philiphine Journal of Crop Science. 28(1): 25.
Carlberg. E., G. Kostandini, and A. Dankyi 2012. The Effects of Integrated Pest
Management Techniques (IPM) Farmer Field Schools on Groundnut
Productivity: Evidence from Ghana. Selected Paper prepared for presentation at
the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association’s 2012 AAEA Annual
Meeting, Seattle, Washington, August 12-14.
Chaudhry, K.M. 2002. Community infrastructure services Program (CISP): HRD
manual. Muzaffarabad: Department of Local Government and Rural
Development, Govt. of AJK.
Chaudhry, M. G. 1983. Green revolution and redistribution of rural income: Pakistan
experience. A reply Pakistan Dev. Review. xxxii-2
Chi. T. T. N., M. Hossain, and F. Palis. 2004. Impact of integrated pest management-
farmer field school (ipm- ffs) on farmers’ insect pest management belief, attitude
and practices (kap) in vietnam. Omonrice 12: 109-119
Ciszinszky, J. 1981. Influence of NPK fertilizer on the technological qualities of plant
cane. Variety CB. 41-76. Inst. Sug. J. 84 (3): 76-82
Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling techniques. 3 rd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Pp 37-40.
Das. P. 1999. Cropping Pattern (Agricultural and Horticultural) in Different Zones, their
Average Yields in Comparison to National Average/Critical Gaps/Reasons
Identified and Yield Potential. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New
Delhi. Pp 33-37.
113
David, S. 2007. Learning to think for ourselves: knowledge improvement and social
benefits among farmer field school participants in Cameroon. J. Int. Agri. and
Ext. Edu. 14 (02): 35-49.
David. S., and C. Asamoah. 2011. Farmer knowledge as an early indicator of IPM
adoption: a case study from cocoa farmer field schools in ghana. Journal of
Sustainable Development in Africa. 13 (4)
Davis, K. 2006. Farmer field schools: A boom or bust for extension in Africa? Journal of
International Agricultural and Extension Education 13 (1): 91–97.
Dinpanah, G., M. Mirdamadi, A. Badragheh, J. M. Sinaki, and F. Aboeye. 2010. Analysis
of Effect of Farmer Field School Approach on Adoption of Biological Control on
Rice Producer’ Producer’ Characteristics in Iran. American-Eurasian J. Agric. &
Environ. Sci. 7 (3): 247-254.
Dinpanah. G., and F. Zand. 2012. Regression and Discriminative Analysis of Effect of
Farmer Field School (FFS) approach on the adoption of biological control in Sari
Township, Iran Annals of Biological Research, 3 (4):1739-1746
Duriat, A. S. 1999. Non-chemical control of pests and diseases of hot pepper.
Indonesian Agricultural Research and Development Journal. 21(2): 21-26.
Elias, E. (2012) PhD Thesis on “Integrated Nutrient Management to attain sustainable
productivity in east African farming system (INMASP).
Endalew, B. D., (2009) MSc Thesis on “Effectivess of farmer field schools in promoting
coffee management practices: The case of Jimma and Sidama Zones”. Submitted to
Haramaya University, Ethopia.
Eponou, T. 1993. Partners in agricultural technology. ISNAR Research Report No. 1.
The Hague: ISNAR.
Erbaugh. J. Ma., J. Donnermeyer, M. Amujal, & M. Kidoido. 2010. Assessing the Impact
of Farmer Field School Participation on IPM Adoption in Uganda.
17(3). 17301-17306
FAO. 2000. Guidelines and references material on integrated soil and nutrient
management and conservation for Farmer Field Schools.
114
Fliert, E. V. D. and E. Van de Fliert. 1993. Integrated pest management: farmer field
schools generate sustainable practices. Wageningen Agricultural University
Papers. 34(3): 93-103.
Fliert, E. V. D., J. Pontius, N. Roling, and E. Van de Fliert. 1995. Searching for strategies
to replicate a successful extension approach: training of IPM trainers in Indonesia.
European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 1(4): 41-63.
Frusciante, L., P. Carli, R. Maria, S. Ercolano, R. Pernice , A.D. Matteo, V. Fogliano, and
N. Pellegrini. 2007. Antioxidant nutritional quality of tomato. Mol. Nutr. & Food
Res. 51(5): 609-617.
Gleason. M. L. and B. A. Edmunds. 2013. Tomato diseases and disorder. Department of
plant pathology. http://www.google.com/Date of retrieval June 13.
Gotland. E. M., E. Sadoulet, A. D. Janvry, R. Murgai, and O. Ortiz. 2004. The Impact of
Farmer-Field-Schools on Knowledge and Productivity: A Study of Potato
Farmers in the Peruvian Andes. Berkley education. 1-26.
Govt. of Pakistan. 2005. Government of Pakistan. National Agricultural Research
Council. Annual Report. Pp. 6-7.
Govt. of Pakistan. 2010. Agri. Statistics of Pakistan, Ministry of Food, Agriculture
(MINFA). (Econ. Wing), Islamabad.
Govt. of Pakistan. 2013. Economic Survey of Pakistan. Agricultural Growth. Pp: 17.
Gujrati. D. N., 2004. Basic econometrics: International edition. 3 rd ed., Me Graw Hill
Book Co., New York.
Gyawali, B. K. and V. M. Salokhe. 1997. Farmers field schools: a participatory outreach
research approach on safe application of agro-chemicals and bioproducts.
Proceedings of the international workshop on safe and efficient application of
agro chemicals and bio products in south and Southeast Asia, Bangkok, Thailand.
14 (3): 177-184.
115
Habib, M., M. Zafarullah, M. Iqbal, K. Nawab, and S. Ali. 2007. Effect of farmer field
schools on sugar cane productivity in Malakand Agency. Sarhad Journal of
Agriculture. 23(4): 1233 – 1237.
Hassan, J. 1991. Influence of NPK fertilizer on the technological qualities of plant cane,
verity CB. Inst. Sug. J. 84(3): 76-82.
http://www.gateway to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Date of retrieval 18-5-2012)
http://www.nabard.org/modelbankproject/tomato.asp (date of retrieval 25-3-2013).
http://www.smeda.org (date of retrieval 07-10-2012).
Idachaba, F. 1987. Agricultural research in Nigeria: Organization and policy. In V. W.
Ruttan & C. Pray (Eds.), Policy for agricultural research. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Iqbal. M., K. Nawab, M. Sajjad, U. Pervaiz, and S. Ullah. 2012. Farmers field schools
and rice productivity: An empirical analysis of district Malakand. Sarhad J. Agric.
28, No.1 Pp: 143-149
Jensen, R. 1982. Adoption and diffusion of innovation of uncertain profitability. Journal
of economics. 27 (1): 182-192.
Kaimowitz, D., M. Snyder, & P. Engel. 1990. A conceptual framework for studying the
links between agricultural research and technology transfer in developing
countries. In D. Kaimowitz (Ed.), making the link: Agricultural research and
technology transfer in developing countries. London: Westview Press.
Khushk, A. M. 2007. Profitability of vegetable cultivation. http://www.google.com/ bitter
gourd production in Pak. Date of retrieval October 20, 2011.
Koike. S. T., K. V. Subbarao, R. M. Davis, and T. A. Turini. 2013. Vegetable disease
caused by soil borne pathogens. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
University of California. Publication 8099. http://www.google.com/Date of
retrieval October 23, 2013.
Kotile, D. G. and R. A. Martin. 1998. Farmers perspectives on sustainable farming
system: A case study proceedings of the fourteenth annual conference of the
116
association for international agricultural and extension education, Tucson,
Arizona. Pp. 361-369.
Le Strange. M., W. L. Schrader, and T. K. Hartz. 2000. Fresh market tomato production
in California. University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural
resources. Publication 8017.
Malik, W. A. 1990. Systems paradigm: A study of Agricultural knowledge system in
Pakistan. Islamabad, Pakistan: Leo Books. . Mallah, U. 1997. Extension Programs in Pakistan. In E. Basir (Ed.) Extension Methods
Islamabad, Pakistan: National Book Foundation. 35- 60.
Mangan, M. S. 1997. Chinese rice farmers, the new IPM experts. ILEIA Newsletter.
13(4): 14-15.
Mauceri. M., J. Alwang, V. Barrera 2005. Adoption of Integrated Pest Management
Technologies: A Case Study of Potato Farmers in Carchi, Ecuador. Selected
Paper prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics
Association Annual Meeting, Providence, Rhode Island, Agricultural and
Applied Economics Department Virginia TechBlacksburg, Virginia. July 24-
27.
Mian, N. I. and M. A. Khan. 1981. A study of cropping pattern in Peshawar disrtrict. IDS
NWFP Agric. Univ. Peshawar.
Mirza, H. A. 1993. Diffusion and adoption of innovations. Extension methods. National
book foundation, Islamabad. Pp.112.
Moris, J. 1991. Extension alternatives in tropical agriculture. London: ODI.
Muhammad. S, K. M. Chaudhry, A. Khatam and I. Ashraf. 2013. Impact of farmer field
schools on social wellbeing of farming Community in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,
Pakistan. The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences, 23 (1): 319-323
Nachmias, C. F. and D. Nachmias. 1992. Research methods in the social sciences. 4 th
edition. Martin press Inc. Kent, UK.
Nyambo, B., M. Kimani and S. Williamson. 1997. Developing an African model for
effective IPM training. ILEJA Newsletter. 13 (4): 28-29.
117
Oladosu, O. I., and E. O. Okunade. 2006. Perception of village extension agents in
disseminating agricultural information in Oyo agriculture zone of Oyo-state.
Journal of Social Science. 12 (3): 187-191.
Onduru. D., F. Muchena, L. Gachimbi, and F. Maina. 2002. Experiences with Farmer
field schools in Kenya.
Ooi, P. A. C. (1998). Farmer participation in IPM action research. Unpublished paper
presented at the International Conference of IPM – Theory and Practice,
Developing Sustainable Agriculture, Guangzhou, China, 15-20 June 1998.
Ooi. P. A. C. 2006. Managing invasive pest species andthe Farmer Field School
approach. FAO Corporate document repository.
Ooi. P. A. C. and P. E. Kenmore. 2006. Impact of Educating Farmers about Biological
Control in Farmer Field Schools, Second International Symposium on Biological
Control of Arthropods. Pp. 277-289.
Oram, P. A. and V. Bindlish. 1984. Investment in agricultural research in developing
countries: Progress, problems, and the determination of priorities. Washington,
DC: IFPRI.
Orr, C. L. 2003. Informational needs of limited-scale landowners within the urban/rural
interface of Lincoln County, Oklahoma (Master's thesis, Oklahoma State
University 2003).
Palada. M. C. and L. C. Chang. 2003. Suggested cultural practices for bitter gourd.
International cooperators’ guide. Pp. 5.
Pervaiz, U. 2009. An investigation into the causes of slow diffusion of tube well irrigation
technology in NWFP, Pakistan. Unpublished PhD dissertation. NWFP
agricultural University Peshawar.
Peter A. C. Ooi and P. E. Parker. 2005. Impact of education farmers about biological
control in farmers field schools. Second international symposium on biological
control of Arthropods.
PHP. 2001. Project for Horticulture Promotion. Annual Report. Pp. 16-17.
118
Pincus, J. 2000. The impact of farmer field school on farmer’s cultivation practices in
their own field. Report submitted to the FAO, inter country program for
community IPM in Asia.
Polson, J. and T. Gastier. 2001. Small farm/new farm: One agent meeting other agents'
needs for research-based information through the WWW. Journal of Extension
[On-line] 39 (4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001august/tt1.html. Date
of retrieval January 15, 2013.
Pontius, J. Dilts, R., and Bartlett, A. (Eds). 2002. “From Farmer Field School to
Commu- nity IPM. Ten years of IPM Training in Asia.” FAO, Bangkok,
Thailand.
Quizon. J., G. Feder, and R. Murgai. 2001. Fiscal sustainability of agricultural extension:
The case of Farmer Field School Approach. Development research group, World
Bank.
Robertson, A. 2013. A New Opportunity: Agricultural Extension as a Peace building
Tool. http://reliefweb.int/report/world/new-opportunity-agricultural-
extensionpeacebuilding-tool. Date of retrieval January 25, 2013.
Rodriguez, G. (1993) Experimentacion y Generacion de Tecnologias en Control Natural
de Plagas con Pequenos Agricultores en Honduras. Ingeniero Agronomo Thesis.
Escuela Agricola Panamericana, El Zamorano, Honduras.
Saleem. M. Y., M. A. Haq, T. Rafiq, A. Kamran, and A. A. Khan. 2009. Genetic analysis
to identify suitable parents for hybrid seed production in tomato. Pak. J.
Bot. 41(3): 1107-1116.
Schmidt. P. 1997. Farmer Field Schools: a participatory large scale extension approach.
Beraterinnen News. 1(2): 17-22.
Shafiq, M. and T. Rehman. 2000. The extent of resource use inefficiencies in cotton
production in Pakistan’s Punjab: an application of Data Envelopment Analysis.
Agricultural Economics. 22: 321-330.
Siddiqui, B. N. 2003. Analysis of communication interventions of extension field staff in
apple growing areas of Baluchistan (Pakistan). Unpublished Doctoral Thesis,
119
Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Agriculture Faisalabad,
Pakistan.
Stock, T., 1996. Group activities for participatory monitoring and evaluation: an
adaptable model. Journal of Extension Systems. 12 (2): 33-44.
Tsur, Y., M. Sternberg, and E. Hochman. 1990. Dynomic modeling of innovation
process: Adoption with risk aversion and learning. Oxford Economic Papers. 42
(1): 336-355.
Vaan. S. and T. Spurlock. 2013. Take- All root rot warm- season truf. Division of
agriculture research and extension. University of Arkansas System.
http://www.google.com/Date of retrieval October 10.
Vallad. G. and G. Amanda. 2013. Organic management of vegetable diseases part 1:
soil borne pathogen# Pp 253. http://www.google.com/Date of retrieval October
23, 2013.
Van Bruggen. I. A. H. C., J. L. S. Jiggins and I. A. J. Termorshuizen. 2006. Impact of
Integrated Pest Management Farmer Field Schools on health, farming systems,
the environment, and livelihoods of cotton growers in Southern India.
Van den Berg, H. 2004. IPM Farmer Field Schools: A synthesis of 25 impact evaluations.
Rome: Global IPM facility.
Van den Berg, H. and Jiggins, J., 2007. Investing in farmers- the impacts of farmer field
schools in relation to integrated pest management. World development, 35 (4),
663–686.
Waseem, M. 1982. Local power structure and the relevance of rural development
strategies: A case Study of Pakistan. Community Develop. J., 17: 225-233.
Yorobe Jr., J. M., R. M. Rejesus, M. D Hammig. 2011. Insecticide Use Impacts of
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Farmer Field Schools: Evidence from Onion
Farmers in the Philippines." Agricultural Systems 104 (7):580-7.
APPENDIX-A INTERVIEW SCHEDULE ANALYSIS OF FARMER FIELD SCHOOL EFFECT ON AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTIVITY IN TWO DISTRICTS OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA-
PAKISTAN
120
1. Name of FFS respondent___________________________________
2. District: ___________________ Tehsil: _______________________
Village: ___________________________________
3. Age ________________________________ years
4. Education _________________________________
I: Literate _________________________________
A: Primary __________________________
B: Middle ___________________________
C: Matric ___________________________
D: Intermediate ______________________
E: Graduate _________________________
II: Illiterate _______________________________
5. Household size (NO.) Male _______ Female ________ Total ________
6. Farming Experience ________________ years
7. Total area _________________________________
I: Irrigated ____________________
II: Un irrigated _________________
a. Area owned _________________________
b. Lease In ____________________________
c. Lease out ___________________________
d. Culturable waste _____________________
8. Irrigation status of the land
a. Tube well irrigation _____________________
b. Canal ________________________________
c. Any other _____________________________
121
d. Abiana / Acre Rs. _______________________
e. Electric / Diesel Rs. _____________________
f. Cost __________________________________
9. Cropping Pattern
a. Rabi Crop Grown
• Wheat ________________________________
• Pulses ________________________________
• Vegetables ____________________________
i. __________________________
ii. __________________________ iii.
__________________________ iv.
__________________________ v.
__________________________
• Fruits ________________________________
• Tobacco ______________________________ Sugar
Beet_____________________________
• Oil seeds ______________________________
b. Kharif Crops grown
• Maize ________________________________
• Pulses ________________________________
• Vegetables ____________________________
i. _________________________
ii. _________________________ iii.
_________________________ iv.
_________________________ v.
_________________________
• Fruits ________________________________
• Rice _________________________________
• Sugar cane ____________________________
• Others _______________________________
10. Do you know Extension personnel/ facilitator before FFS in your area?
If yes, how do you know them?
a. Met in the field _______________________
122
b. Visiting his office _____________________
c. Met in the Village _____________________
d. Contact on telephone ___________________
e. Any Other ___________________________
If No, reasons
a. ____________________________________
b. ____________________________________
c. ____________________________________
d. ____________________________________
11. Do you visit local Extension Personnel/ facilitator Office for the solution of the
problems after FFS?
If yes, how frequently
a. Daily _____________________________
b. Weekly ___________________________
C. Monthly __________________________
d. Once a year _______________________
If No, give reasons
a. Not interested ______________________
b. Have no time _______________________
c. Not required _______________________
d. Other, specify ______________________
12. Who do you met in the office of Agriculture extension office?
a. Subject Mater specialist ___________________________
b. Agricultural Officer ______________________________
123
c. Field Assistant __________________________________
d. Any Other _____________________________________
13. Do Extension personnel visit your field?
If yes, who visits your field?
a. Subject Matter Specialist ___________________________
b. Agricultural Officer _______________________________
c. Field Assistant ___________________________________
d. Any Other ______________________________________
14. How often extension personnel visit your field?
• Daily _____________________________________________
• Weekly ___________________________________________
• Monthly __________________________________________
• Once a year _______________________________________
15. How did you come to know about Farmer Field School?
a. Agriculture extension personnel________________________
b. Through mass Media ________________________________
c. Through fellow farmers ______________________________
d. Any other _________________________________________
16. What extension methods were used by extension personnel for information
dissemination before FFS?
a. Individual contact __________________________
b. Group contact _____________________________
c. Mass Contact _____________________________
17. What extension approach is used by extension personnel other then FFS?
a. T & V _______________________________
124
b. Conventional _________________________
c. PTD ________________________________
d. Any other ___________________________
18. Usual place of contact with FA, AO before FFS.
a. Farm ____________________________________
b. Home/ Hujra ______________________________
c. Mosque __________________________________
d. Office ___________________________________
e. Any other ________________________________
19. Which of the following activities were being implemented by Extension
personnel in FFS.
a. Increase new knowledge _____________________
b. Use of improve technology ___________________
C. Agriculture Inputs use_______________________
d. Understanding about plant protection measures ___
e. Awareness of marketing facilities ______________
f. Others, specify, if any _______________________
20. Are present Ext. services effective? Y/N
If yes, level of effectiveness.
a. High _______________________
b. Medium _____________________
c. Lower ______________________
If No, why?
a. ___________________________________
125
b. ___________________________________
c. ___________________________________
21. Are present FFS activities effective? Yes/ No
If yes, level of effectiveness
a. High ___________________________
b. Medium ________________________
c. Lower __________________________
If No, why?
a. ___________________________________
b. ___________________________________
c. ___________________________________
22. Are you implemented the FFS activities in your own field? Yes/ No
If yes, why
a. __________________________________
b. __________________________________
c. __________________________________
d. __________________________________
If No, why
a. __________________________________
b. __________________________________
c. __________________________________
d. __________________________________
23. Land Preparation
• Ploughs _____________________________
• Disc Plough__________________________
• Rotivator ____________________________
• Hand Hoe ___________________________
126
• Chisel Plough ________________________
Any
others___________________________
• Cost ________________________________
TOMATO
24. Seeds and Sowing methods
Applications Before FFS Cost After FFS Cost
Seed rate per acre
Time of nursery
sowing
Time of transplanting
Plant to plant spacing
Row to row spacing
25. Nutrients per acre
Fertilizers
Before FFS After FFS
Quantity Cost Quantity Cost
Urea
DAP
SOP
SSP
TSP
NPK
ZnSO4
Farm yard Manure
Total
26. a. Crop Protection from Insect Pest
Insect /Pest
Cultural
Control
Biological
control
Chemical
Control
Mechanical
Control
Cost / Acre
Befor
e FFS
After
FFS Befor
e
cost
Afte
r
cost
Befor
e Cost
After
cost Before
cost After
cost Before
cost After
cost
Grass
Hopper
Aphids
White Fly
Fruit Borer
Nematodes
127
Termite
b. Crop protection from Diseases
Disea
ses
Cultural
Control
Biological
control
Chemical
Control
Mechanical
Control
Cost
Before
cost Afte r cost
Before
cost After
cost Befor e cost
After
cost Before
cost After
cost Before
FFS After
FFS
Early Blight
Late Blight
Viral
Fungal
Soil Burn
Root Rot
Bacterial
Wilt
27. Yield and Income per acre of tomato crop
Measurements Before FFS After FFS Comparisons
Yield per acre
Income per acre
BITTER GOURD
28. Seeds and sowing method of bitter gourd
Applications Before FFS Cost After FFS Cost
Seed rate per acre
Time of nursery
sowing
Time of transplanting
Plant to plant spacing
Row to row spacing
29. Nutrients per acre
Fertilizers
Before FFS After FFS
Quantity Cost Quantity Cost
Urea
DAP
SOP
SSP
TSP
NPK
ZnSO4
Farm yard manure
128
Total
30. a. Crop Protection from Insect Pest
Insect/ Pest Cultural
Control
Biological
control Chemical
Control
Mechanical
Control
Cost
Before
cost After
cost Before
cost After
cost Before
cost After
cost Before
cost After
cost Before
FFS
After
FFS
Grass/
hopper
Aphids
White Fly
Fruit Fly
Stem/Borer
Nematodes
Termite
b. Crop protection from Diseases
Diseases
Cultural
Control
Biological
control
Chemical
Control
Mechanical
Control
Cost
Before
FFS
After
FFS Before
cost After
cost Before
cost After
cost Before
cost After
Cost Before
cost After
cost
Early
Blight
Late
Blight
Viral
Fungal
Soil Burn
Root Rot
Bacterial
Wilt
31. Yield and Income per acre of Bitter Gourd crop
Measurements Before FFS After FFS Comparisons
Yield per acre
129
Income per acre
APPENDIX- B MAP OF PAKISTAN
130
APPENDIX-C MAP OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA
131
APPENDIX-D MAP OF DISTRICT CHARSADDA
APPENDIX-E MAP OF DISTRICT MALAKAND
132
133
APPENDIX- F ABBREVIATIONS GDP Gross Domestic Product
FATA Federal Administrated Tribal Area
GoP Government of Pakistan
AID Agricultural and Industrial Development
IRDP Integrated Rural Development Project
T&V Training and Visit
PSEA Public Sector Extension Approach
PEA Participatory Extension Approach
CSEA Community Specialized Extension Approach
UNDP United Nations Development Project
IPPM Integrated Production and Pests Management
IPM Integrated Pest Management
NES National Extension Service
MoA Ministry of Agriculture
PRRA Participatory Rural Rapid Appraisal
PRA Participatory Reflection and Action
LNRP Legume Network Research Projects
NAADS National Agricultural Advisory and Development Service
EFS Extension Field Staff
EDO Executive District Officer
FFS Farmer Field School
PTDD Participatory Technology Development and Dissemination
