Technology Transfer Through

Farmer Field School in Indonesia A History

A Report ByMr Allah dad Khan

Outline of Presentation

History of Farmer Field School

Process of IPM Farmer Field School

FFS Follow-up Activities

Some Impact Studies

Closing Remarks

Prophylactic, calendar- based spraying

Heavy subsidy on pesticides (80%)

History of Farmer Field SchoolOutbreak of BPH during 1970-1980s

Presidential Decree (1986) banned the use of 57 pesticide formulation in rice production Phased-out of pesticide subsidies Established IPM training for farmers (Farmer Field School)

History of Farmer Field SchoolIPM Policy

FFS is is a group extension method based on adult education program that utilizes discovery learning and participatory techniques.

Composed of groups of 25-30 farmers who meet regularly during the course of the growing seasons.

FFS aims to increase the capacity of groups of farmers to carry out experiments in their own fields.

The facilitator is called a field leader (FL). The FLs are trained in both technology and facilitation skill in a program called a Training of Trainers (TOT).

History Farmer Field SchoolWhat is a Farmer Field School

Grow a healthy cropo Resistant varieties, proper fertilzers, water and soil management,

etc o Healthy crop can resist diseases and compensate for damage

Observe fields regularlyo To assess crop development, diseases, insect pest population,

and natural enemies. Conserve natural enemies of crop pests

o Abundance of natural enemies in the field Avoid the use of pesticides that kill natural enemies

Farmers understand ecology and become experts in their own field Make decisions based on observations and analysis of the field

situation

History of Farmer Field SchoolFour Major Principles of IPM FFS

Agroecosystem Analysis

Field visit / field observations

o Go to the field in subgroups (5 farmers per subgroup)

o Choose 10 plants randomly

o Observe plant, pests, natural enemies, diseases, weeds, weather etc

Process of Farmer Field School

Drawing Each subgroup presents

their observations and analysis in drawing.o planto weathero disease symptomo pestso natural enemieso water level

Process of Farmer Field SchoolAgroecosystem Analysis

Presentation and Discussion Each subgroup presents

their analysis Group discussion Decision about pest control

measure is made Facilitator will facilitate the

discussion

Process of Farmer Field SchoolAgroecosystem Analysis

IPM validation trials

IPM Practices vs Farmer Practices

Conducted on 1000 m2 plot, each 500 m2

Process of Farmer Field School

Supporting IPM Field Studies

Crop compensation

oTo demonstrate that crop plants can compensate for some damage by producing new leaves or shoots

Process of Farmer Field SchoolSupporting IPM Field Studies

Field cageso To demonstrate how

natural enemies keep pest population under control

Process of Farmer Field SchoolSupporting IPM Field Studies

Plastic baggingo To demonstrate how enclosing cacao pod with the pastic bag can prevent attack from pod borer

Process of Farmer Field SchoolSupporting IPM Field Studies

Side-graftingo Farmers learn how to

make a side-grafting on cacao

Process of Farmer Field SchoolSupporting IPM Field Studies

Use of insect trapso Farmers learn how to

monitor insect population using traps

Process of Farmer Field SchoolSupporting IPM Field Studies

Insect zooo To study life cycle of insectso To study feeding behavior of

insectso To study predator and

parasitoids

Process of Farmer Field SchoolSupporting IPM Field Studies

A variety of team building games and exercises employed during the training

Process of Farmer Field SchoolGroup Dynamics

To foster cooperation and togetherness within the group To sharpen farmer

communication and organizing skills

FFS starts with a ballot-box pretest of knowledge and ends with a posttest A simple tool to measure the level of a farmer’s knowledge on an agroecosystem Questions focus on:

recognition of pests, natural enemies, diseases recognition of damage from pests and diseases management of pests and diseases etc

Process of Farmer Field SchoolBallot Box

At the end of FFS season To show the results of FFS to other farmers, agricultural staff, local government officials.

o IPM plot vs Farmer Practice ploto Other field experimentso Insect zoo (pests and natural enemies)

Process of Farmer Field SchoolField Day

Farmer-to-Farmer FFS

One-week training is conducted for farmer trainers prior to organize farmer-led FFS;

Curriculum of TOT includes facilitation and management skills for organizing an FFS, and review and discuss background of FFS topics, e.g. agro-ecosystem analysis.

Farmer-to-Farmer FFS are implemented in the same way, except the trainers are farmers.

Key elements in the development of IPM over large areas.

Follow-up Activities

Farmer IPM Field Studies

To develop farmer’s own knowledge and technologies;

To develop a capacity to find an answer/proof or to test a method;

To develop farmer’s capacity on research and its networking with research-related institutions.

Follow-up Activities

Making plant extracts for botanical pesticides and testing the effectiveness

Farmer IPM Field Studies

Study on effects of plastic mulch Study on effects of bamboo staking in potatoes

Follow-up Activities

Farmer IPM Field Studies

Production and application of Trichoderma

Follow-up Activities

FFS - IPM Food crops Palawija crops Vegetable crops Fruit crops Industrial crops

• FFS-ICM Rice Soybean Corn

• FFS – GAP• FFS - Climate

Funding Sources Self financed FFS District government Pronvincial government Central government World Bank USAID ADB ACIAR etc

• Modified to train farmers of other crops• The training methodology was not changed.

Development of FFS

SEARCA (1999): Use of insecticides was 35% less for FFS farmers than for non-FFS farmers Yield of rice was 7.9 % higher for FFS farmers than for non-FFS farmers FFS farmers spent 21% less on pesticides, 12% more on fertilizers and 4% more on labor than non-FFS farmers FFS farmers had 5% lower production costs than non-FFS farmers FFS farmers had higher knowledge scores on pests, natural enemies and pesticides than non-FFS farmers.

FFS in Rice

Some Impact Studies

Feder et al 2003: Yields decreased from 1991-1999 for FFS farmers and non-FFS farmers Pesticide expenditure increased for FFS farmers and non-FFS farmers No significant effect of training on the change in yield or pesticide expenditure between FFS farmers and non-FFS farmers

FFS in Rice

Some Impact Studies

Yamazaki S and Resosudarmo BP (2006)[Utilizing the same data set as Feder et al (2004)]

Substantial positive impacts on agricultural productivities by the FFS for both farmers who participated in the FFS and those who indirectly obtained the new knowledge Farmers who participated in the FFS and those who indirectly obtained the new knowledge reduced their spending on pesticides and conducted this practice over time Farmers’ performance is positively-spatially correlated between neighbors in the same village. This positively supports the existence of farmer-to-farmer knowledge diffusion.

FFS in Rice

Some Impact Studies

Mariyono J (2009): Performance of FFS implementation was not as good as expected On average, the proportion of highly satisfactory FFS was only 32% Efforts to improve the performance of FFS implementation resulted in an increase in the number of highly satisfactory FFSs (50%) by the end of the project The impact of IPM technology on the reduction in pesticide use was significantly dependent on the performance of the FFS The better performance of the FFSs, the higher the level of rice production and the lower the level of pesticide use

FFS in Rice

Some Impact Studies

Londe, Hammig, Rauf (1999): The coefficient for IPM training (FFS) were positive and highly significant suggesting the overall effectiveness of training to be positive Farmers with IPM training were most likely to adopt sustainable practices.

FFS in Vegetables

Some Impact Studies

Hutabarat et al. (2004): IPM farmers had better ability to recognize insect natural enemies. IPM farmers earned a higher profit than non-IPM farmers IPM farmers used less pesticides as opposed to non-IPM farmers

FFS in Estate Crops

Some Impact Studies

Extending FFS program to other crops and activities should be accompanied by the quality assurance of its implementation

Closing Remarks