Technology Transfer Through Farmer Field School in Indonesia Aunu Rauf 1, Nugroho Wienarto 2, BM Shepard 3, GR Carner 3, MD Hammig 3, EP Benson 3, G Schnabel 3 1 Bogor Agricultural University - Indonesia 2 FIELD Indonesia Foundation - Indonesia 3 Clemson University - USA

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 School Outbreak of BPH during s

 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 School IPM Policy

 FFS is is a group extension method based on adult education program that utilizes discovery learning and participatory techniques.  Composed of groups of 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 School What is a Farmer Field School

 Grow a healthy crop o Resistant varieties, proper fertilzers, water and soil management, etc o Healthy crop can resist diseases and compensate for damage  Observe fields regularly o 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 School Four 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 plant o weather o disease symptom o pests o natural enemies o water level Process of Farmer Field School Agroecosystem 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 School Agroecosystem 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 o To demonstrate that crop plants can compensate for some damage by producing new leaves or shoots Process of Farmer Field School Supporting IPM Field Studies

 Field cages o To demonstrate how natural enemies keep pest population under control Process of Farmer Field School Supporting IPM Field Studies

 Plastic bagging o To demonstrate how enclosing cacao pod with the pastic bag can prevent attack from pod borer Process of Farmer Field School Supporting IPM Field Studies

 Side-grafting o Farmers learn how to make a side-grafting on cacao Process of Farmer Field School Supporting IPM Field Studies

 Use of insect traps o Farmers learn how to monitor insect population using traps Process of Farmer Field School Supporting IPM Field Studies

 Insect zoo o To study life cycle of insects o To study feeding behavior of insects o To study predator and parasitoids Process of Farmer Field School Supporting IPM Field Studies

 A variety of team building games and exercises employed during the training Process of Farmer Field School Group 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 School Ballot 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 plot o Other field experiments o Insect zoo (pests and natural enemies) Process of Farmer Field School Field 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 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