Project:

Strengthening Plant Protection Services Project, Department of Agricultural Extension & DANIDA

Year:

1998-2002

Crop:

Rice

Level:

Self-evaluation by a project

Scope:

Immediate impact of training

Objective:

To study the effects of training on knowledge, pesticide use and crop yield

Methods:

1. Tool: Structured questionnaires
2. Design: A latitudinal comparison was made between FFS and non-FFS farmers at 2 years after the former group had received their training.
3. Parameters: Pesticide use, pesticide cost, varieties, yield, pest management practices, knowledge
4. Sample size: 166 FFS farmers and 140 non-FFS farmers, taken from 15 districts.

Figure A-8. Pesticide use (in number of applications season^-1) and yield (in t ha^-1)
of rice by FFS farmers and non-FFS farmers.

Results:

1. A 92% reduction in pesticide spray application rate was attributed to training, from modest 1.0 application per season in non-FFS farmers to a negligible 0.1 applications per season in FFS farmers (Figure A-8). In addition, a 92% reduction in granular pesticide application rate was recorded, from 0.8 to 0.1 applications per season.
2. A 9% increase in yield was attributed to training, from 4.7 t/ha in non-FFS farmers to 5.2 t/ha in FFS farmers.
3. FFS farmers were able to mention more types of pests, types of natural enemies, crop management methods, and pesticide side-effects than non-FFS farmers. The level of knowledge was positively associated with the use of IPM methods.

Comments:

1. In addition to the data discussed above, large-scale routine monitoring data using longitudinal and latitudinal comparisons are available for 8 seasons (SPPS documents nr 17, 32, 54, 55, 66, 71, and 77). These data indicate a consistency in pesticide reductions (83-98% per season) and yield increase (6-20% per season) attributable to training. However, the routine data refer to the season in which the FFS respondents were trained (i.e. before their “graduation”), and as such they do not show the adoption of IPM.
2. Literacy was higher among FFS farmers (74%) than among non-FFS farmers (52%), which may have influenced the results.
3. Recall data referring to the season prior to the most recent season were omitted from this case.
4. The data on pesticide use do not differentiate between insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, etc. Hence, the data could conceal a shift between groups of pesticides or a shift between hazard levels of pesticides.

Conclusion:

Even though pesticide use in non-trained farmers was moderate (roughly 1 spray plus 1 granular application per season), training was shown to reduce pesticide use to negligible levels. Perhaps more important to farmers, the data indicate a consistent increase in yield attributable to the effect of IPM.

Source:

E.W. Larsen, M.L. Haider, M. Roy & F. Ahamed (2002) Impact, sustainability and lateral spread of integrated pest management in rice in Bangladesh. Document SPPS 73, Department of Agricultural Extension and DANIDA. See also SPPS documents nr 17, 32, 54, 55, 66, 71, and 77.

Project:

Strengthening Plant Protection Services Project, Department of Agricultural Extension & DANIDA

Year:

1998-2002

Crop:

Eggplant

Level:

Self-evaluation by a project

Scope:

Immediate impact of training

Objective:

To study the effects of training on knowledge, pesticide use and crop yield

Methods:

1. Tool: Structured questionnaires
2. Design: A latitudinal comparison was made between FFS and non-FFS farmers at 1 year after the former group had received their training.
3. Parameters: Pesticide use, pesticide cost, varieties, yield, pest management practices, knowledge
4. Sample size: 193 FFS farmers and 167 non-FFS farmers, taken from 16 districts. In addition to training on eggplant, training on three other vegetables was evaluated (cabbage, country bean and okra), but sample sizes were small.

Results:

1. Eggplant received high frequencies of pesticide spraying by non-FFS farmers, with up to 32 spray applications per season. Pesticides were mainly targeted against Leucinodes orbonalis, a pyralid moth, the larva of which feeds inside fruits and shoots and is therefore shielded against contact insecticides.
2. An 80% reduction in pesticide spray frequency, from 7.0 to 1.4 applications per season, was attributed to the effect of training (Figure A-9). In addition, granular pesticides were reduced from 0.7 to 0.1 applications per season. 58% of trained farmers reported using no pesticides at all.
3. Despite reduced spraying against the main pest, trained farmers reported 25% higher yields (from 13.7 to 17.1 t ha^-1) than untrained farmers, presumably attributable to a change in agronomic practices. The quality of produce was not considered.
4. Limited data obtained from training in other vegetable crops showed drastic reductions in pesticide use (82% for cabbage, 92% for country bean and 97% for okra), apparently without compromising yield weight.
5. FFS farmers were able to mention more types of pests, diseases, natural enemies, crop management methods and pesticide side-effects than non-FFS farmers. The level of knowledge was positively associated with the use of IPM methods.

Figure A-9. Pesticide use (in number of applications season^-1) and yield (in t ha^-1)
of eggplant by FFS farmers and non-FFS farmers.

Comments:

1. In addition to the data discussed above, large-scale routine monitoring data using longitudinal and latitudinal comparisons are available for 5 seasons (SPPS documents nr 20, 26, 56, 64, and 76). These data show a consistency in pesticide reductions (52-87% per season) and yield increase (9-25% per season) attributable to training. However, the data refer to the season in which the FFS respondents were trained (i.e. before their “graduation”), and as such they do not show the adoption of IPM.
2. Literacy was higher among FFS farmers (71%) than among non-FFS farmers (49%), which may have influenced the results.
3. The data on pesticide use do not differentiate between insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, etc. Hence, the data could conceal a shift between groups of pesticides or a shift between hazard levels of pesticides.

Conclusion:

Training caused a drastic reduction in pesticide use in eggplant. The results, in combination with monitoring data, indicated a consistent increase in yield weight attributable to the effect of training. This increase was presumably due to improved agronomic practices, although this was not discussed in the study.

Source:

E.W. Larsen, M.L. Haider, M. Roy & F. Ahamed (2002) Impact, sustainability and lateral spread of integrated pest management in vegetables in Bangladesh. Document SPPS 74, Department of Agricultural Extension and DANIDA. See also SPPS documents nr 20, 26, 56, 64, and 76.

Project:

Danida IPM Farmer Training Project

Year:

2003

Crop:

Rice

Level:

Self-evaluation by a project

Scope:

Immediate impact of training

Objective:

To study the effect of IPM on knowledge, skills and farming practices, and to study spread of IPM

Methods:

1. Tool: Semi-structured questionnaires; group discussion tools; field observations
2. Design: Latitudinal comparison between FFS farmers, exposed farmers (i.e. FFS in the village but did not participate) and non-FFS farmers (from outside villages with comparable conditions). In addition, a longitudinal comparison was made between the season of training and 1- and 2-years after training. However, because no baseline was available, the longitudinal comparison will be omitted here.
3. Parameters: Pesticide use, inputs and costs, agricultural practices, yield, knowledge
4. Sample size: 180 FFS farmers and 174 exposed farmers selected from 12 villages (i.e. 15 FFS farmers and 15 exposed farmers per village; 2 villages from each of 6 provinces; pseudo-replicated). 174 non-FFS farmers selected from 12 villages (15 per village; 2 villages from each of 6 provinces).

Results:

1. A 43% reduction in insecticide use from 2.9 to 1.6 applications per season was associated with training; for pesticide volume the reduction was 64%. The reduction was most pronounced for hazardous class Ia and Ib chemicals. Large differences in pesticide volumes were found between provinces.
2. Exposed farmers showed a pesticide use similar to that of non-FFS farmers. However, they appeared to select less toxic products.
3. Yield and profits were not significantly affected by training.
4. FFS respondents knew more types of beneficial organisms and alternative pest control methods, were better aware of pesticide health risks, and were more often asked for advice by other farmers, than were non-FFS respondents.
5. Despite the positive effects, it was found that FFS farmers experience much pressure from their surroundings to continue using pesticides. Hence, follow-up activities after the FFS were considered important.

Comments:

1. The data refer to the season in which half of the FFS respondents were trained (i.e. before their “graduation”); the other half was trained a year earlier. Therefore, it is unclear to what extend the aggregated data indicate adoption of IPM. Moreover, respondents were asked to recall their practices from one and two years earlier, which may not be accurate.
2. It was shown that FFS farmers were younger, more literate and better educated than non-FFS and exposed farmers, suggesting a possible source of bias.

Conclusion:

An apparent reduction in pesticide use was recorded; however, because part of the data refer to the season of training, it is possible that the training effect was underestimated. Within-village diffusion of knowledge and practices was limited.

Source:

B. van Duuren (2003) Report of a consultancy on the assessment of the impact of the IPM programme at field level. Integrated Pest Management Farmer Training Project, Cambodia. DANIDA, unpublished report.

Project:

China/FAO/EU Cotton IPM Program

Year:

2001-02 (and ongoing)

Crop:

Bt Cotton

Level:

Self-evaluation by a project

Scope:

Immediate impact of training

Objective:

To study the impact of training in a range of fields (i.a. poverty alleviation, pesticide reduction, health, education, social capacity) for different interest groups.

Background:

100% of farmers in the study area had adopted growing of Bt cotton prior to the project.

Methods:

1. Tools: Structured questionnaires (supplemented with rapid appraisal techniques, case studies, secondary data, participant observation and seasonal monitoring)
2. Design: Longitudinal and latitudinal comparison. Three groups of farmer households were compared: (i) FFS, (ii) exposed to IPM (i.e. FFS in the village but did not participate) and (iii) non-FFS households. For each group, a baseline survey was conducted early 2001 to recall data from 2000, IPM training was conducted in 2001, and a post-survey was done in 2002 referring to the 2002 season. The selection of respondents involved a two-step procedure: (i) 50 respondents were sampled village^-1 group^-1 and (ii) out of these, 20 were selected village^-1 group^-1 such that a similar background on land size, education and production conditions was obtained across groups.
3. Parameters: Knowledge; pesticide use; agronomic; yield; income; inputs
4. Sample size: 60 FFS farmers, 60 exposed farmers (20+20, resp., from each of 3 villages; pseudo-replicated), and 60 non-FFS farmers (20 from each of 3 villages). All villages were in Lingxian county.

Results:

1. FFS farmers reduced insecticide spraying from 6.3 to 3.1 applications season^-1 after training, whilst non-FFS farmers reduced spraying from 6.3 to 5.8 applications season^-1 during the same period. For insecticide amount, the reduction was from 7.4 to 1.3 kg ha^-1 in FFS farmers versus 4.4 to 4.0 kg ha^-1 in non-FFS farmers (Figure A-10). Moreover, there is evidence that FFS farmers used relatively fewer hazardous class I chemicals than non-FFS farmers.
2. After the training season, FFS farmers increased their yield by 16% (and their income from cotton by 20%), compared to a 2% yield increase (9% increased income) in non-FFS farmers during the same period.
3. Exposed farmers reduced their spraying frequency by 46% and their insecticide volume by 78%, but unlike in FFS farmers no clear yield increase was observed. This suggests that diffusion was strong for insecticide use, but not for other practices that affect yield.

Comments:

1. The background on land size, education and production conditions was similar between the three groups, justifying a comparison. Moreover, longitudinal data available for each group improved the resolution of the effect attributable to training.
2. However, the number of true replicates was small. This is relevant because there were clear differences between FFS and non-FFS villages in seed rates, varieties and fertilizer inputs prior to training. The small number of villages taken from one county furthermore raises the question to what extent the results are representative of the overall program.

Figure A-10. Insecticide amounts used by FFS farmers and non-FFS farmers,
before and after the FS season.

Conclusion:

Despite small sample size, the data show a convincing effect of training on insecticide use, which readily diffused among villagers.

Source:

National Agro-technical Extension and Service Center (2003) Report on impact assessment of China/EU/FAO Cotton IPM Program in Shandong Province, P.R. China. Unpublished Report, Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing.

Project:

FAO-Intercountry Program

Year:

1995-1996

Crop:

Rice

Level:

External evaluation

Scope:

Immediate impact of training

Objective:

To compare the development of learning concepts in two types of field-based training

Methods:

1. Tool: Structures questionnaires
2. Design: Evaluation of farmers’ understanding of agroecosystem concepts before training, immediately after training, and one year later. This longitudinal comparison was done for two treatments: training focusing on ecosystem analysis (i.e. FFS) and training focusing on pest identification, thresholds and pesticide choice (so-called 3-Pests-3-Diseases training; 3P3D).
3. Parameters: Agroecosystem concepts (i.e. the consistency of answers to three related questions); pesticide applications; yield
4. Sample size: 1 village for each treatment; 10 km distance between villages; total 45 farmers (pseudo-replicated)

Results:

1. Immediately after training, farmers had similar concepts in both treatments, but one year later, FFS graduates had increased their concepts whereas the 3P3D graduates had reduced their concepts (Figure A-11).
2. Insecticide use one year after training was lower for FFS graduates (2.2 applications per season) than for 3P3D graduates (3.1). No yield difference was found.

Figure A-11. Comparison between FFS and 3P3D training in the number of respondents
with robust concepts immediately after training and one year later.

Comments:

Small sample size and pseudo-replication render data on spraying and yield weak.

Conclusion:

However small the study, it recorded that continued learning takes place following the discovery-learning approach of the FFS. In contrast, the effect of the message-based approach (3P3D) appeared to erode in the course of time.

Source:

J. Mangan & M.S. Mangan (1997) A comparison of two IPM training strategies in China: The importance of concepts of the rice ecosystem for sustainable insect pest management. Agriculture and Human Values 15, 209-221

Project:

Kasakalikasan

Year:

1995-2000

Crop:

Rice

Level:

External evaluation

Scope:

Immediate impact of training

Objective:

To study knowledge retention and farmer-to-farmer spread of FFS-acquired knowledge and practices

Methods:

1. Tool: Structured questionnaires
2. Design: In a survey in 2000, knowledge on agriculture and pest management was compared between old (> 5 yrs ago) and new (< 5 yrs ago) FFS graduates. Also, knowledge was compared between FFS farmers and non-FFS farmers, and between exposed and non-exposed farmers.
3. Parameters: Knowledge scores; socio-economic parameters
4. Sample size: In total 308 respondents were taken from 5 FFS and 5 non-FFS villages (69 FFS farmers [51 old and 18 new graduates], 89 exposed farmers (i.e. FFS in the village but did not participate), and 146 non-FFS farmers.

Results:

1. FFS farmers had significantly higher scores on agricultural and pest management knowledge than non-FFS farmers, indicating an effect of training.
2. No difference in knowledge was found between old and new graduates, suggesting that knowledge had been retained.
3. 70% of FFS farmers claimed to have shared their acquired knowledge with, on average, 1.5 farmers, one third of who resided outside the village.
4. There was no significant difference in knowledge scores between exposed and non-FFS farmers. Likewise, no difference was found between those who had received knowledge from FFS farmers and those who had not. Hence, there was no evidence of diffusion of knowledge.

Conclusion:

Although complex knowledge on agroecosystem management was retained by FFS graduates, it was not readily diffused through informal interactions.

Source:

A.C. Rola, S.B. Jamias & J.B. Quizon (2002) Do farmer field school graduates retain and share what they learn?: An investigation in Iloilo, Philippines. International learning workshop on farmers’ field schools: Emerging issues and challenges. Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 21-25 October 2002.

Project:

National IPM Program

Year:

2002

Crop:

Rice

Level:

Self-evaluation by a project

Scope:

Immediate impact of training

Objective:

To study training impact on pesticide use and agricultural practices

Methods:

1. Tool: Structured questionnaires
2. Design: Latitudinal comparison between FFS and non-FFS sites; non-FFS sites were coupled to FFS sites to limit bias
3. Parameters: Pesticide use; agronomic; socio-economic
4. Sample size: Large (275 FFS sites; 117 non-FFS sites)

Results:

1. 23% yield increase and 41% increase in profit was ascribed to FFS
2. Insecticide use was reduced by 81% (from 2.2 to 0.4 sprays season^-1)
3. Incorporation of rice straw to improve soil characteristics was applied by 84% of FFS farmers compared to only 31% of non-FFS farmers
4. FFS farmers visited their fields at shorter intervals allowing for timelier crop management
5. Low training costs (FFS and cost of training-of-trainers, i.e. $12 per farmer) were recovered 7-fold within a single season due to relatively high benefits
6. Training effects on insecticide use, rice straw use and yield were durable over the study period of 6½ years (Figure A-12, A-13)
7. There was evidence of diffusion of IPM within a village, but diffusion between villages was not found

Figure A-12. Insecticide applications in 2001 by farmers trained 1-4, 5-8 and 9-13 seasons ago,
and by non-FFS farmers. ‘n’ indicates the number of sites.

Figure A-13. Rice yield in 2001 by farmers trained 1-4, 5-8 and 9-13 seasons ago,
and by non-FFS farmers. ‘n’ indicates the number of sites.

Comments:

1. The general profile of FFS and non-FFS farmers was fairly similar, justifying a comparison.
2. Low training costs and large benefits can make up for considerable levels of bias.

Conclusion:

Low cost of training, high benefits and durable impacts indicate that the FFS is effective in Sri Lanka. This study was coupled to a participatory evaluation, which confirmed the main findings and described additional developmental impacts of training (see Case 16).

Source:

H. van den Berg, H. Senerath & L. Amarasinghe (2002) Participatory IPM in Sri Lanka: A broad-scale and an in-depth impact analysis. FAO Programme for Community IPM in Asia. Summary published as: “Farmer field schools in Sri Lanka: Assessing the impact.” Pesticide News 61 (2003), 14-16.

Project:

National IPM Program

Year:

2002

Crop:

Rice

Level:

Self-evaluation by farmers

Scope:

Immediate & developmental impact of training

Objective:

To evaluate how the FFS has influenced our lives

Methods:

1. Tool: Photo reportage; writing captions
2. Design: 6 villages were selected by program staff according to preset criteria; 5 farmers per village were introduced to methods of self-evaluation
3. Parameters: Specified by participants; any immediate or developmental impacts of training
4. Sample size: 5 participants from each of 6 villages

Results:

1. Farmers recorded a variety of immediate or developmental impacts of training in photographs accompanied by captions (illustrated in Figure A-14).
2. Farmers described that women became more closely involved in farming, farmers started helping each other at labor-intensive times; farmers organized themselves to produce seed paddy or to market pesticide-free rice; the access to government aid improved; and farmers assumed new leadership roles in their villages.
3. Farmers described innovative agricultural methods attributed to training, and how IPM was extended to other commodities. Farmers also described how profits from IPM were used to build new houses, improve or diversify agricultural production, and provided various new business opportunities (3-wheel taxi, sewing machine, refrigerator for yogurt production, grinding machine, vegetables sales outlet, shop, pesticide-free marketing unit).
4. More impacts were recorded as villages had a longer post-FFS history, suggesting that the FFS can set in motion a development process (Figure A-15).

Figure A-14. Examples of farmer-taken photographs and captions: [Left] ”This picture shows how we harvest the crop as a group. Before the FFS we used to do our own work either with family labor or by hiring labor. When you have to hire labor it is difficult to accomplish your work on time and the quality of work is also poor. After the FFS the group members have gotten so close that we help each other in activities like this.” [Right] “We have learnt the value of green manure [...]. So we use whatever green matter is available to the crop. [Gliricidia] which grows on fences is a good green manure”.

Comments:

Selection of villages was biased towards those known or favored by program staff. Moreover, the impacts of IPM were possibly over-stated. Nevertheless, the cases describe how local programs can potentially develop after the FFS.

Figure A-15. Scatter plot of the number of impacts of IPM in relation to the number of
seasons ago that participants followed field school training (n = 6 villages).

Conclusion:

This study by farmers indicated that the benefits of FFS training are not restricted to IPM but the learning approach potentially sets in motion the development of local programs which may affect all assets (natural, human, social, physical and financial) of rural livelihoods. The stories by farmers express a dynamism, creativity and collegiality.

Source:

H. van den Berg, H. Senerath & L. Amarasinghe (2002) Participatory IPM in Sri Lanka: A broad-scale and an in-depth impact analysis. FAO Programme for Community IPM in Asia. Summary published as: “Farmer field schools in Sri Lanka: Assessing the impact.” Pesticide News 61 (2003), 14-16.

Project:

International Water Management Institute research project

Year:

2000

Crop:

Rice

Level:

External evaluation

Scope:

Developmental impact of training

Objective:

To evaluate the impact of pesticide use on occupational health of farmers.

Methods:

1. Tools: Structured questionnaire; blood sampling to measure activity of acetyl cholinesterase.
2. Design: Three groups of people were compared: (i) FFS farmers, (ii) non-FFS farmers and (iii) non-farmers. For each group, data were obtained before the yala season (low exposure period, as baseline) and during the yala season (high exposure period).
3. Parameters: Time spent spraying, self-reported symptoms of pesticide poisoning in the past week, acetyl cholinesterase activity in blood samples.
4. Sample size: 122 FFS farmers; 94 non-FFS farmers; 44 non-farmers from a fishing village.

Results:

1. The group of FFS farmers spent only one-fifth as long spraying insecticides as non-FFS farmers, indicating an impact of training on behavior. The group of non-farmers did not spray.
2. Farming was associated with higher prevalence of pesticide related symptoms (e.g. fainting, vomiting, nausea, blurred vision, headache, dizziness) and higher acetyl cholinesterase inhibition levels. 24% of all farmers suffered at least once from acute pesticide poisoning.
3. FFS farmers exhibited a significantly lower inhibition level than non-FFS farmers. However, the general inhibition level was low in all groups, indicating a modest pesticide exposure at the time of blood sampling.
4. The results did not demonstrate an association between cholinesterase inhibition and prevalence of symptoms.

Comments:

1. Not all farmers had recently been exposed to organophosphates or carbamates at the time of blood sampling which could explain the relatively low average inhibition level.
2. Acetyl cholinesterase is inhibited only by organophosphate and carbamate insecticides.

Conclusion:

Farming was associated with a high incidence of pesticide related symptoms, but FFS farmers spent considerably less time spraying pesticides than non-FFS farmers and accordingly exhibited lower cholinesterase inhibition. This indicates a positive effect of training on health.he data indicate a consistent increase in yield attributable to the effect of IPM.

Source:

L.A.M. Smit, B.N. van Wendel de Joode, D. Heederik, R.J. Peiris-John & W. van der Hoek. Effects of occupational pesticide exposure on symptoms and acetyl cholinesterase inhibition among Sri Lankan farmers. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, in press.

Project:

National Program on Integrated Pest Management

Year:

1999-2001 (and ongoing)

Crop:

Rice

Level:

External evaluation

Scope:

Immediate impact of training

Objective:

To test if farmers participate to a degree necessary to understand ecosystem principles, and to test whether farmers apply what they have learned.

Methods:

1. Tools: Structured questionnaire
2. Design: Longitudinal and latitudinal comparison. Three groups of farmers were compared: (i) FFS, (ii) exposed to IPM (i.e. FFS in the village but did not participate) and (iii) non-FFS farmers. For each group, a baseline survey was conducted before the IPM training season of 1999-2000, and a post-survey was done at the same time after one year. Exposed and non-FFS farmers were selected according to a similarity with FFS farmers in observable characteristics with regard to the natural environment and socio-economic conditions. Drop-out analysis was conducted using a multinomial logit model.
3. Parameters: Knowledge; practices; attendance; pesticide cost; yield; socio-economics; income.
4. Sample size: 107 FFS farmers and 58 exposed farmers from 5 villages, and 76 non-FFS farmers from 5 different villages. Pseudo-replication. Paired FFS- and control-villages were taken from 5 different provinces. Data on 24 drop-outs were used for drop-out analysis.

Results:

1. An increased knowledge about pests and natural enemies was ascribed to the effect of training.
2. Trained farmers reduced their costs of insecticides by 58% and their costs of moluscicides by 59%, while costs for exposed farmers and non-FFS farmers did not change over the study period.
3. Regarding the level of drop-out: 81% of participants attended more than half of the FFS classes, half of whom missed only up to 2 classes. Provisionally, several factors limiting drop-out could be identified: regular training sessions, a priori knowledge about pests, and low opportunity costs of labor.

Comments:

1. Differences in background and characteristics between FFS farmers, exposed farmers and non-FFS farmers had not been assessed. However, prior to training, FFS candidates had more knowledge about pests and had higher insecticide costs than non-FFS farmers, which indicates dissimilarity to some extent.
2. Details on pesticide use, data on yield and other variables are not reported, but this study is ongoing.

Conclusion:

Training caused a substantial reduction in the use of insecticides and moluscicides the season after training.

Source:

Praneetvatakul, S. & H. Waibel (2003) A socio-economic analysis of farmer field schools (FFS) implemented by the National Program on Integrated Pest Management of Thailand. Paper presented at the CYMMIT impact assessment conference, 4-7 February 2002, San Jose, Costa Rica (in preparation).

Project:

FAO Programme for Community IPM in Asia.

Year:

1994-95

Crop:

Rice

Level:

Self-evaluation by a project

Scope:

Immediate impact of training

Objective:

Measure the farm-level economic impact of training to provide feedback for program planningd

Methods:

1. Tool: Semi-structured questionnaires
2. Design: Longitudinal comparison, before and after training; 1-year time lag. In 2 provinces, a control group of non-FFS farmers was added.
3. Parameters: Pesticide use, inputs and costs, yield
4. Sample size: Very large (866 farmers, 1112 field plots; 76 non-FFS farmers as comparison in 2 provinces; coverage over 7 provinces).

Results:

1. Sharp 82% reduction in insecticide use, from 1.7 to 0.3 applications per season (pooled by province, but considerable differences in levels between provinces) (Figure A-16). This decline was linked to improved farmer knowledge.
2. Fungicide use was reduced in the North (-76%), but increased in the South (+47%)
3. Farmers saved on average $8 on pesticide expenditures per season
4. Yield increase was 7% over the study period (pooled by province; -2 to 13% per province)
5. There was evidence of innovative techniques after training (e.g. low seed rates, low plant density, balanced fertilizers, delayed nitrogen application).

Figure A-16. Seasonal applications of insecticides and fungicides before and after training.

Comments:

1. Due to the comparison over time, yield increase could not be ascribed solely to the effect of training.
2. In the South, an increase in fungicide use was also found in “non-FFS” farmers, and may have been caused by a changed marketing of fungicides, changed prices or changed disease pressure.
3. It is not clear whether the latitudinal comparison with “non-FFS” farmers expresses a trend in time or a diffusion effect (i.e. is an increased yield or a reduced insecticide use in the control group a general trend or contagion?).

Conclusion:

Data from all seven provinces demonstrated a sharp decline in insecticide use the season following training. There was possibly an effect on yield, which would contribute more to farm-level productivity than the reduced pesticide expenditure, but this requires further study.

Source:

J. Pincus (1999) The impact of IPM farmer field schools on farmers’ cultivation practices in their own fields. Unpublished report, FAO Programme for Community IPM in Asia.

Project:

Tea IPM Training and Development Programme in Thai Nguyen and Phu Tho Provinces

Year:

1999-2001

Crop:

Tea

Level:

Self-evaluation by a project

Scope:

Immediate impact of training

Objective:

To study the impacts of training on practices

Methods:

1. Tool: Unstructured interviews supplemented with field visits
2. Design: Longitudinal comparison, before and one year after training.
3. Parameters: Pesticide use, yield, profit, new farmer initiatives
4. Sample size: Approx. 875 FFS farmers and 875 non-FFS farmers, taken from 35 villages (25 FFS and 25 non-FFS farmers from each of 35 villages). Non-FFS farmers were selected who had tea fields as part of the same contiguous growing area as FFS farmers. The unstructured interviews were conducted for 44 FFS and 22 non-FFS farmers.

Results:

1. Following training, a reduction in pesticide applications of 53% and 68% was reported from Thai Nguyen and Phu Tho district, respectively. Non-FFS farmers reduced spraying by 44% but still sprayed twice as often as FFS farmers.
2. In Thai Nguyen district, a slight decrease in yield was reported in FFS farmers in the year after training. However, due to reduced pesticide expenditure, profits increased by 13%.
3. In Phu Tho district, a 54% yield increase and a 54% increase in profits was observed after training. Non-FFS farmers increased their yield by 36% and their profit by 17% during the same period.
4. Half of non-FFS farmers said they had adopted at least one practice from FFS farmers, suggesting a local diffusion effect.
5. FFS farmers reported the use of improved mulching and fertilizing practices, and planted shade trees.
6. It was further reported that some FFS farmers assumed leadership roles as trainers of other farmers, and that farmers started field experimentation, tea nurseries, and small credit schemes.

Comments:

1. Details on the methods and results are in Vietnamese.
2. The reported diffusion effect between FFS and non-FFS farmers in the same contiguous areas suggests that the comparison between FFS and non-FFS farmers causes under-estimation of benefits.

Conclusion:

The results show that an ecological educational approach in tea helps farmers reduce pesticide use, while adoption of improved agronomic practices potentially increases tea yield.

Source:

Le Toan (2002) IPM impact evaluation of “Training and Development of IPM in Tea – V204”, Phu Tho Plant Protection Sub-Department (in Vietnamese). And: Luong Van Vuong (2002) IPM impact evaluation in tea, 2001. Thai Nguyen Plant Protection Sub-Department (in Vietnamese), as discussed in: Vietnam country report: The state of farmer education in IPM farmer field schools and follow-up activities. FAO-EU Cotton IPM Steering Committee Meeting, Chizhou, China, 2002.

Project:

ADDA-Phase II Vegetable IPM Project

Year:

1999-2001

Crop:

Cabbage, tomato, bean

Level:

Self-evaluation by a project

Scope:

Immediate impact of training

Objective:

Objective: To study the merit of IPM practices in vegetables

Methods:

1. Tool: Field data obtained during FFS training
2. Design: Direct latitudinal comparison between small field plots with IPM and farmer practice treatments during Farmer Field School training; one block at each field school.
3. Parameters: Pesticide use, fertilizer use, yield
4. Sample size: 49 FFS on cabbage, 49 FFS on tomato, 33 FFS on bean

Results:

1. For cabbage, insecticide use could be reduced by 70% in IPM treatments compared to the farmer practice (Table A-3). Fungicide use was reduced by 40%.
2. For tomato, insecticide use was reduced by 38%, fungicide use by 47%.
3. For bean, insecticide use was reduced by 52%, fungicide use by 27%.
4. Nitrogen fertilizer was reduced by 20-26% while use of potassium fertilizer was increased by 9-34% in the three vegetable crops.
5. Yield was increased by 14% for cabbage, 27% for tomato and 14% for bean.

Comments:

1. Results were obtained during training; thus, they do not show whether IPM had been adopted by farmers.
2. The farmer-practice treatment was possibly biased by the IPM treatment, because farmer concepts about their previous practice can change during training. Consequently, the difference between treatments could have been underestimated.

Conclusion:

This preliminary result demonstrated the potential of IPM to substantially reduce pesticide use in vegetables while improved agronomic practices can help increase yield. Further evaluation is needed to study whether IPM is being adopted by vegetable farmers.

Source:

Agricultural Development Denmark Asia (ADDA) (2002), IPM Farmer Training 2^nd Phase, Participatory Farmer Training in Vegetable Production in Hanoi – Based on the IPM Concept. Unpublished proposal.