Akhtar Ahmed Siddiqui Agriculture Department, Government of Sindh, Pakistan

Transcription

1 Long Term Impact Assessment of Integrated Pest Management Farmer Field Schools on Farmers Knowledge of Insect Pest Identification and of Control Insect Pests And Diseases in Cotton Akhtar Ahmed Siddiqui Agriculture Department, Government of Sindh, Pakistan Ahmed Ali Mengal Agriculture Department, Government of Balochistan, Pakistan ABSTRACT This study was conducted in selected districts of Sindh province of Pakistan to assess the long-term impact of Integrated Pest Management Farmer Field Schools (IPM-FFSs) on farmers selfreportedknowledge regarding insect pest identification and their confidence level to control insect pest and diseases in cotton crops. IPM-FFSs were implemented between 2001 and 2004 by FAO-EU-ADB funded National Integrated Pest Management Programme (Nat-IPM) for Cotton. This study was carried out in four districts of Sindh province (Hyderabad, Tando Allahyar, Matiari and Mirpurkhas), the sample size comprised of 432 farmers in total, selecting 108 farmers from each district. The results indicated that IPM-FFS training programme increased farmers knowledge regarding cotton insect pest identification and their confidence level to control insect pest but farmers remained unsure over cotton diseases control. The benefits of training are evident five years after termination of the programme; however, the diffusion of IPM knowledge to non-ffs participants appears to have been limited. Keywords:Integrated Pest Management (IPM), Farmer Field School (FFS), Diffusion. INTRODUCTION In Pakistan cotton (Gossypiumhirsutum L.) production provides a livelihood to around 1.5 million farmers in rural areas. Cotton is a major source of export capital, accounting for 6.9 percent of value added in agriculture and 1.4 percent of GDP. Pakistan s cotton production increased 13,595 thousand bales, during as against 11,460 thousand bales in , estimating an increase of 18.6 percent (GoP, 2011). Despite being one of the largest cotton growing countries, per acre cotton yield remains low as compared to other countries (GoP, 2011). The low yields result from unfavorable weather, pests attack and limited awareness of the pesticides and pest management options for improved cropping. Farmers use a variety of pesticides on cotton crop to eliminate insects and weeds from their fields, these pesticides can have the potential to harm human and the environment. The excessive or mistimed use of the pesticides can disrupt the growth of cotton beneficial insects and provide an opportunity for harmful pests to attack. Also the pesticides use increases production costs to growers (GoS, 2013). To address these challenges, research efforts have taken to minimize dependence on pesticides through the implementation of IPM-FFS programmes (Page & Ritchie, 2009). Unfortunately, in most cases the IPM-FFS programmes have limited success on reducing the use of pesticides (Fittet al. 2004). To a certain extent reasons are environmental uncertainty, poor knowledge of farmers and untrained IPM experts. The Farmer Field School (FFS) is a training model developed primarily by Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in which farmers gain the decision making power regarding use of agro-chemicals at their field. The FFS approach is unique extension season long training conducted on their fields. This extension approach is action-learning oriented where farmers are allowed to observe, analyze and make alternative decision about their crop (Kingsley, 1999). IPM-FFS training emphasized that the crops should be healthier with reduced use of pesticides, which could be deleterious to natural pest control mechanism. In addition, the basic principle of IPM-FFS training was to enable farmers to become self-sufficient, using Integrated Pest Management practices that are agro-ecosystem friendly. To tackle these issues farmers require to have improved disease and pest recognition, to understand methods of monitoring and control options and be able to correctly apply chemistry or IPM techniques. > RJSSM: Volume: 04, Number: 10, February 2015 Page 75

2 The farmers who participate in FFS become part of wide scale IPM programmes, ranging from local to national research; they analyze production issues and develop solutions for them at the country level (FAO, 2000). This collective research with farmers involves establishing local needs, information about local conditions, eco-system characteristics, and weather (Linh, 2001). Various studies regarding IPM-FFS programmes agree that FFS strengthens farmers eco-logical knowledge (Thiele et al., 2001; Rolaet al., 2002; Federet al., 2004; Reddy and Suryamani, 2005; Tripp et al., 2005). Improved farmer knowledge and understanding of the crop eco-system leads ultimately to reduction in pesticides use and increases production and profit (Godtlandet al., 2004; Khan et al., 2005). During , Sindh province embraced IPM-FFS as the dominant interface between agriculture extension and farmers. It was assumed that through this new FFS training model, farmers would change their traditional role from passive learner to active learner; however, no follow-up was made at the time to establish if this had occurred. This study was undertaken to address this and to establish what practice methods and knowledge retention and extension the participants who were enrolled and received IPM-FFS training in cotton during in Sindh province have maintained and developed. This was proposed to be achieved by establishing the retained farmer knowledge regarding insect pest identification,which was acquired by cotton farmers during FFS training and their confidence level in using IPM practices to control insect pests and diseases in cotton. It was hypothesized that if significant difference among farmers knowledge of insect pest identification and their confidence level to control insect pest and diseases and significant farmer-to-farmer diffusion then the value of the IPM-FFS training programme would be evident. However, of the little retention, development or extension of the training was evident then this would question whether agriculture extension should rely on IPM-FFS training programmes to strengthen the agriculture information flow and dissemination of agricultural technologies among farmers with special reference to cotton crop. MATERIAL AND METHODS Four districts were selected for the study Area viz., Hyderabad, Tando Allahyar, Matiari and Mirpurkhas district, where FFSs were established during 2001 to 2004 for cotton. A descriptive research study was carried out. In descriptive survey research, the researcher selects a group of respondents, collects information and then analyzes the information to answer the research questions (McMillan, 2008). This study intended to collect information regarding farmers knowledge regarding insect pest identification, confidence level to control insect pest and diseases in cotton. The target populations of this study was categorized in three groups; i.e. trained group (IPM-FFS participants), exposed group (non-ipm-ffs participants but from villages exposed to IPM-FFS training), and control group (farmers who were neither involved in IPM-FFS nor living in IPM-FFS village). A list of the original IPM-FFS trained farmers (trained group) were obtained from National IPM-FFS programme coordinator, Director General, Agricultural Extension Wing, Hyderabad, Sindh. The sample was determined using Table for determining random sample size from a given population at 95% confidence level and 5% (+ or -) margin of sampling error rate (Fitz-Gibbon & Morris, 1987). The total 144 sample size of farmers (trained group) included in the research study were evenly distributed by district (36 from each district). Furthermore, the list of cotton farmers who did not participate in IPM-FFS training programme (Exposed and Control), using non-probability technique of quota sampling, the second category of exposed, 144 farmers were taken from villages where IPM-FFS training had occurred and from the third category of control, 144 farmers were taken from the villages situated at least 15 kilometers of distant from IPM-FFS villages and with the radius of about 20 kilometers. Assumed enough distance to possible dissemination of IPM knowledge; where sufficient cotton growing farmers were available to obtain cross-sectional data. Hence, total 432 farmers were included in the research study. Within each of the farmer categories, live in FFS and Non-FFS villagesconsidering the matching characteristics such as age, education and landholding were established. The questionnaire was developed in consultation with the IPM-FFS experts and following review of available literature. The concepts or ideas were predominantly measured through different statements > RJSSM: Volume: 04, Number: 10, February 2015 Page 76

3 on a continuum ranging from negative to positive. Despite several efforts, a total response rate of 93.75% was obtained, with more than 60% response rate considered sufficient for comparison between two or more groups and for validation of the research results (Wunsch, 1986). A data coding sheet was developed and all data were analyzed using appropriate statistical analysis techniques, with IBM-SPSS version 19 used for data analysis. Frequency, mean, percentage, and standard deviation were calculated. For the comparison among groups ANOVA was performed and Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT) was applied to rank the means. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Demographic Information: The demographic characteristics of the sampled farmers are presented in table-1. The largest age demographics for the various farmer groups were 28.1% of trained farmers fell in the age group of years, 24.4% of less the 20 years in the exposed group and 26.7% of control farmers in the age group of 30 years and over. 27.4% of trained farmers were educated up to primary level, whilst 24.4% and 25.9% of exposed and control farmers, respectively wereilliterate. Tertiary education graduated farmers from the trained, exposed and control groups represented 11.1%, 8.9%, and 10.4%, respectively. The majority of the trained(48.1%), exposed (56.30%), and control(52.60%) farmers were tenants. 27.4% of the trained and 23.7% of the exposedfarmerswere owners of 11 to 20 acres whilst in the control farmers this was 21.5% with 24.4% of the control farmers owning 21 to 30 acres. Relatively large numbers of trained (36.30%), exposed (40.00%) and control (32.60%) farmers had farming experience in the range of 11 to 20 yearswith farmers with less than 10 years of experience being the next most common group. Farm income ranges reflected that there were fewest farmers in each of the groups earning less than 20,000/- Pak rupees, but that there was very little evidence of a trend in income between the groups over the income ranges assessed. Table 1: Demographic Information of Farmers Characteristics Category Trained Exposed Control No. % No. % No. % Less than to Age (in years) 31 to to & above Illiterate Primary Middle Educational Level Matriculate Intermediate Graduate Post Graduate Land Lord Status Tenant Lease Holder Owner-Cultivator Farm Size (in acres) Farming Experience (in years) Less than to to to & above Less than to to > RJSSM: Volume: 04, Number: 10, February 2015 Page 77

4 Farm Yearly Income (in rupees) 31 to & above Up to 20, ,000 to 40, ,000 to 60, ,000 to 80, ,000 to 100, ,000 and above Table 2:Farmers Assessment on Cotton Insect Pest Identification Harmful/Beneficial Insect Trained Exposed Control F. Pests Value Sig. M SD M SD M SD 1 Cotton White Fly 1.06 a b ab 2 Spiders 1.27 a b b ** 3 Cotton Jassid 1.07 a b ab 4 Big-Eyed Bug 1.87 a b c ** 5 Cotton Aphid 1.07 a a a Cotton Thrips 1.07 a a a Predatory Mites 1.33 a b c ** 8 American Bollworm 1.04 a a a Spotted Bollworm 1.06 a a a Pink Bollworm 1.16 a a a Dragonfly 1.25 a b b ** 12 Green Lacewing 1.73 a b c ** 13 Army Bollworm 1.11 a a a Mealy Bug 1.06 a b ab 15 Encarsia 1.73 a b c ** 16 Mirid Bug 1.88 a b b ** 17 Minute Pirate Bug 1.99 a b b ** 18 Damsel Bug 2.11 a b b ** 19 Gray Weevil 1.47 a a a Cotton Semi-Looper 1.39 a a b * 21 Assassin Bug 1.76 a b c ** 22 Spined Soldier Bug 2.13 a b b ** 23 Ladybird Beetle 1.35 a b b ** 24 Wasp 1.48 a b b ** 25 Ants 1.41 a b b ** 1 = CorrectAnswer 2 = WrongAnswer 3 = Don t Know = Non-significant, * = Significant at 0.05 level of significance, ** =Significant at 0.01 level of significance Values in thesame row with different subscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05), as assessed by ANOVA and Duncan s Multiple Range Test. > RJSSM: Volume: 04, Number: 10, February 2015 Page 78

5 Table 3: Farmers Confidence Level to Control Cotton Insect Pest Trained Exposed Control F. Cotton Insect Pests Sig. M SD M SD M SD Value 1 Cotton White Fly 4.11 c b a ** 2 Cotton Jassid 3.99 c b a ** 3 Cotton Aphid 3.71 c b a ** 4 Cotton Thrips 3.64 c b a ** 5 Predatory Mites 3.34 b b a ** 6 Gray Weevil 3.22 b b a ** 7 Mealy Bug 2.82 a a a American Bollworm 3.62 c b a ** 9 Spotted Bollworm 3.76 c b a ** 10 Pink Bollworm 3.77 c b a ** 11 Army Bollworm 3.64 c b a ** 12 Cotton Semi-Looper 3.27 b a a ** 1 = Extremely Unconfident 2 = Unconfident 3 = Neutral or Unsure 4 = Somewhat Confident 5 = Extremely Confident = Non-significant, * = Significant at 0.05 level of significance, **=Significant at 0.01 level of significance Values in the same row with different subscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05), as assessed by ANOVA and Duncan s Multiple Range Test. Farmers Assessment on Cotton Insect Pest Identification: Assessment of farmers identification of cotton insect pests was evaluate on the basis of three points scale (1=Correct answer, 2=Wrong answer, 3=Don t know) and the results are analysed by the previously described categories (table-2). The data showed non-significant (F=2.913, P=0.055 ) variation in responses of trained, exposed and control farmers. There were non-significant differences (P>0.05) in the farmers from the various groups in their ability to recognize whitefly, jassids, cotton aphid, american bollworm, spotted bollworm, mealy bug, grey weevil and thrips table 2. Differences between the groups ability to recognize spiders (F=16.227, P=0.001**) and predatory mites (F=17.909, P=0.001**) with only trained farmers giving the right answer.similarly, there was significant difference in the responses for identification of dragonfly (F=24.388, P=0.001**) and green lacewing (F=42.049, P=0.001**), however, farmersfrom all categories selected the right answer whilst the only wrong answers came from the exposed and control farmer groups. The perception of trained, exposed and control farmers differed significantly on identification of encarsia (F=53.663, P=0.001**), mirid bug (F=42.987, P=0.001**), minute pirate bug (F=28.347, P=0.001**) and Damsel bug (F=17.543, P=0.001**). In identifying these insects exposed and control group farmers selected the wrong answer whilst trained farmers gave right answer, with the exception being for damsel bug identification. The responses of trained, exposed and control farmers varied significantly in the giving the right answer for identification of cotton semi-looper (F=3.657, P=0.027*), wrong answer for assassin bug (F=52.847, P=0.001**), spined soldier bug (F=21.806, P=0.001**). However, the trained farmers gave right answer and exposed or control farmers gave wrong answer for ladybird beetle (F=43.168, P=0.001**); wasps (F=8.479, P=0.001**) and Ants (F= , P=0.001**). The outcomes of the questionnaire analysis into the ability of farmers from the various assigned groups to correctly identify cotton pests and beneficial insects is in keeping with other studies regarding IPM- > RJSSM: Volume: 04, Number: 10, February 2015 Page 79

6 FFS programmes, which agree in their conclusion that attending an FFS strengthens farmers ecological knowledge on harmful and beneficial insects (Reddy and Suryamani, 2005; Tripp et al., 2005). Farmers Confidence Level to Control Cotton Insect Pest: The trained, exposed and control farmers of the study area were assessed for their confidence level in IPM-FFS implementation methods to control insect pests of cottonon the basis of five points Likert scale (1=Extremely confident, 2=Unconfident, 3=Neutral or Unsure, 4=Somewhat confident, 5=Extremely confident)(table-3). The data indicated significant variation in responses of trained, exposed and control farmers (F=80.451, P=0.001**) with trained and exposed farmers somewhat confident whilst,control farmers were neutral/unsure on IPM-FFS to control cotton whitefly. The variation in the perceptions between respondent categories regarding their confidence on IPM-FFS was significant (P<0.001) to control whitefly (F=80.451, P=0.001**), cotton jassid (F=59.676, P=0.001**), cotton aphid (F=28.404,P=0.001**), cotton thrips (F=26.351, P=0.001**), predatory mites (F=15.614, P=0.001**), gray weevil (F=9.165, P=0.001**), american bollworm (F=27.874, P=0.001**), spotted bollworm (F=39.213, P=0.001**), pink bollworm (F=51.291, P=0.001**), army bollworm (F=36.955, P=0.001**) and cotton semi-looper (F=10.435, P=0.001**). The groups responses indicated, non-significant (F=2.025, P=0.113 ) differences in control confidence for mealy bug control. According to the mean and standard deviation derived from the Likert scale, the trained farmers were somewhat confident on IPM-FFS for control of cotton jassid, cotton aphid, cotton thrips, American bollworm, spotted bollworm, pink bollworm and army bollworm, while neutral/unsure about the control of predatory mites, gray weevil and mealy bug. The exposed farmers were somewhat confident on IPM- FFS for control of whitefly only, but neutral or unsure about the control of predatory mites, gray weevil and mealy bug. The exposed farmers were somewhat confident on IPM-FFS for control of whitefly only; but neutral/unsure about the control of predatory mites, gray weevil and mealy bug. The exposed farmers were neutral or unsure ; while the control farmers were neutral/unsure about the confidence on IPM-FFS to control these insect pests and predators. Farmers Confidence Level to Control CottonDiseases: The trained, exposed and control farmers of the study area were asked to expose their confidence level on IPM-FFS to control cotton diseases on the basis of five points Likert scale (1=Extremely confident, 2=Unconfident, 3=Neutral or Unsure, 4=Somewhat confident, 5=Extremely confident)(table 4). The data suggested that the differences in the responses of trained, exposed and control farmers were nonsignificant regarding their confidence on IPM-FFS to control cotton leaf curl virus (F=2.275, P=0.078 ) and bacterial blight (F=0.371, P=0.690 ), but farmers in all categories were unconfident about IPM-FFS in controlling these cotton diseases. Similarly, the differences in the responses of trained, exposed and control farmers were significant regarding their confidence on IPM-FFS to control boll rot (F=6.963, P=0.001**) and root rot (F=22.534, P=0.001**). General performance regarding confidence level test of the respondents could be well compared with the investigation performed by Wandji (2007) who reported that farmers trained through IPM-FFS training methods are well trained to identify the cotton insect pests and diseases, while untrained farmers are entirely unaware of these problems. Moreover, the trained farmers use correct method of controlling thediseases; while the untrained farmers rely on the decisions of pesticide dealers, seed companies and neighboring farmers. Table 4: Farmers Confidence Level to Control Cotton Diseases Trained Exposed Control F. Cotton Diseases Sig. M SD M SD M SD Value Cotton Leaf Curl b ab a Virus 2 Boll Rot 3.03 b b a ** 3 Root Rot 3.48 c b a ** 4 Bacterial 2.70 a a a > RJSSM: Volume: 04, Number: 10, February 2015 Page 80

7 1=Extremely Unconfident 2=Unconfident 3=Neutral or Unsure 4=Somewhat Confident 5=Extremely Confident = Non-significant, * = Significant at 0.05 level of significance, **= Significant at 0.01 level of significance CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATION The results of this study indicated that IPM-FFS training programme was a favorable process in increasing farmers knowledge regarding cotton insect pest identification and their confidence level to control insect pest but unsure to control over cotton diseases. This study did not examine the reason of less confidence of farmers on control over diseases, but scarcity of IPM items in the market could be cause. It is important that IPM-FFS policy makers/implementers should ensure the availability of IPM items and products in the local markets. At the onset of the IPM-FFS training programme farmers should be encouraged to establish small-sized agricultural business projects such as preparation of trichogramma, synthesis of neem-extract, breeding of useful insects, etc. Further, the study indicated that effects of training exist, if not increased five years after termination of the programme. Without baseline data as to the level of knowledge attained after the programme it remains difficult to interpret the level of retention or subsequent gain of knowledge within the trained farmer group. However, it appears that the diffusion of IPM knowledge to non-ffs participants has been limited and that FFS participants have shared little knowledge with non-ffs participants. It was suggested that the farmers can be good source for transferring the obtained knowledge from FFSs, but it would currently appear that the stimulus for this knowledge transfer occurring absent and should be addressed when considering engagement with future FFS participants. REFERENCES 1. FAO Guidelines and reference material on integrated soil and nutrient management and conservation for farmer field schools, FAO, Rome. 2. FAO, Report of the twenty third session of the Asia and Pacific plant protection commission. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Bangkok. 3. Feder, G., R. Murgai& J.B. Quizon, The acquisition and diffusion of knowledge: The case of pest management training in farmer field schools, Indonesia. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 55(2): Fitt, G., L. Wilson, R. Mensah & J. Daly, 2004.Advances with integrated pest management as a component of sustainable agriculture.proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress 26 Sep - 1 Oct 2004, Brisbane, Australia. 5. Fitz-Gibbon, C.T. and L.L. Morris How to analyze data. London: Sage Publications. The International Professional Publisher. 6. Godtland, E., E. Sadoulet, A.D. Janvry, R. Murgai& O. Ortiz, The impact of Farmer Field Schools on knowledge and productivity: A study of potato farmers in the Peruvian Andes. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 53: GoP Agricultural Statistics of Pakistan, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock (Economic Wing), Islamabad. 8. GoP, Annual Plan , Government of Pakistan. Ministry of Planning, Development and Reforms, Islamabad. 9. Khan, M.A. and I. Muhammad Sustainable cotton production through skill development among farmers: Evidence from Khairpur District of Sindh, Pakistan - Article provided by Pakistan Institute of Development Economics in its journal The Pakistan Development Review. 44: Kingsley, M Season of Learning: From field schools to farmers organized management: Extension and Advocacy. Farmer and NGO experiences in Indonesia. Jakarta. World Education. 11. Linh, N Agricultural Innovation.Multiple grounds for technological policies in the red river delta of Vietnam.Wageningen University.Published Doctoral Dissertation. > RJSSM: Volume: 04, Number: 10, February 2015 Page 81

8 12. McMillan, J.H Educational Research: Fundamentals for the consumers, (5th Edition). Boston: Pearson-Allyn and Bacon. 13. Page, L.J.S. & B. Ritchie, A report on better management practices in cotton production in Brazil, India, Pakistan, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Mali, Senegal & Togo. Final Report, Better Cotton Initiative, CABI Europe-UK. 14. Reddy, S.V. & M. Suryamani, Impact of farmer field school approach on acquisition of knowledge and skills by farmers about cotton pests and other crop management practices: Evidence from India. The impact of the FAO-EU IPM programme for cotton in Asia. Pesticide Policy Project, Hannover. Special Issue Publication Series, No. 9. pp Rola, A., S. Jamias and J. Quizon Do farmer field school graduates retain and share what they learn? An investigation in Iloilo, Philippines. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 9: Thiele, G., R. Nelson, O. Ortiz and S. Sherwood 2001.Participatory research and training: Ten lessons from the farmer field schools in the Andes. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 28: Tripp, R., M. Wijeratne and V.H. Piyadasa What should we expect from farmer field schools? A Sri Lanka case study. World Development, 33: Wandji, N., N. Binam, S. David, J.M. Mva and J. Gockowski Assessing potential impact of a farmer field school training on perennial crop in Cameroon. AAAE Ghana Conference Proceedings. pp Wilson, L.J., R.K. Mensah and G.P. Fitt Implementing integrated pest management in Australian Cotton, pp In: A.R. Horowitz, I. Ishaaya (Eds.), Insect Pest Management: Field and Protected Crops, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York. 20. Wunsch, D.R Survey Research: Determining sample size and representative response.in K.W. Brown (Ed.).Action Research in Business Education. pp > RJSSM: Volume: 04, Number: 10, February 2015 Page 82