BIBLIOGRAPHY LUZVIMINDA M. PALENGLENG, October 2009. Factors...
BIBLIOGRAPHY
LUZVIMINDA M. PALENGLENG, October 2009. Factors Affecting the
Implementation of Farmer Field School on Integrated Pest Management in the
Cordillera Administrative Region. Benguet State University, La Trinidad,
Benguet.
Adviser: Bernard S. Tad-awan, Ph. D.
ABSTRACT
This study assessed the factors affecting the implementation of FFS-IPM in the
Cordillera Administrative Region. The result can be used as basis in developing relevant
follow up and upscaling activities for the FFS Program.
Fifty three active trainers and 150 farmer graduates from 1993-2008 were
interviewed in 22 municipalities in all the provinces of CAR. Semi-structured interviews,
focused group discussions and triangulation were used to collect data, and data were
subjected to qualitative analysis, descriptive statistics and correlation analysis.
Most trainer respondents are middle aged (41 – 55 years); more females;
81% were college graduates, 19 had masters degrees in nine different disciplines;
74% graduated from TOT, 21% from TOS, and 6% from crush courses. Each trainer
implemented an average of seven FFS in three years; 75% attended FFSIPM related
training courses and workshops. Majority of the farmer respondents were 41 – 55 years
old and literate with a minimum of high school level education. Farmers saved 54.97%
on the cost of pesticides, 51.90% on fertilizers, and 43.20% on cost of labor. About
16.19% of farmers reported increase in production, 16.68% increase in income, and
15.56% increase in profit.
The motivating factors of trainers in implementing FFS-IPM, in a descending
order, were to produce safe food, restore and preserve beneficial organisms, reduce
chemical inputs, enhance biodiversity, increase income and profit of farmers, and the
opportunity to regularly meet other farmers. The reasons for implementing the FFS were
to learn and share knowledge and skills with farmers, train farmers in IPM by research, to
respond to office mandate, and a few were challenged to test their ability as trainers of
IPM. Three motivational factors namely: higher income and profit of farmers, safer food
production, and the enhancement of biodiversity significantly influenced the adaptability,
appropriateness and relevance of the features and characteristics of FFS-IPM. The more
motivated the trainer to effect higher income and profit by the farmers, the lesser was
their adaptability of the FFS – IPM features and characteristics; the more motivated the
trainer to effect the enhancement of biodiversity, the higher was their adaptability; and
the more motivated the trainers to effect the production of safe food by the farmers, the
higher the perceived relevance are the features and characteristics of FFS-IPM.
The overall degree of adaptability of the features and characteristics was
moderate; the degree of appropriateness and relevance were both high. Number of
participants, time of the day, number of hours, and the conduct of insect/disease zoos
were consistently rated moderate on adaptability, appropriateness and relevance. High
degree of adaptability was noted with trainers from Benguet, Ifugao and Kalinga,
moderate from Abra, Apayao and Mt. Province. High level of appropriateness was noted
with trainers from Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga and Mt.
ii
Province; moderate from Abra and Apayao; and high degree of relevance from Apayao,
Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga and moderate from Abra and Mt. Province.
The effects of FFS on the income and profit as well as the adoption of IPM technologies
were moderate.
Gender, season long training in FFS-IPM on vegetables and rice, and attendance
to FFS-IPM related workshops significantly affected adaptability, appropriateness and
relevance of the features and characteristics of FFS-IPM.
Females had higher adaptability than males. More attendance to season long
training on FFS-IPM of vegetables and rice, the less appropriate are the features and
characteristics of the FFS-IPM. The more attendance to season long training in
vegetables, the less relevance was perceived. More attendance to consultation workshops,
the lesser was appropriateness perceived.
Farmers attended FFS basically to learn new things, to get support or material
things after the training, due to influence of neighbors, and as inspiration to others. The
major motivations in applying knowledge and skills gained were higher income and
profit, safer food, reduced cost of pesticides and reduced cost of fertilizers. Degree of
knowledge and skills applied differed: Abra, Apayao, Benguet, and Kalinga had
moderate level of application; and weak application in Ifugao and Mt. Province.
Significant differences existed among the provinces in changes made on the time
of day, number of hours, subject matter, research design, and conduct of insect/disease
zoo. Number of hours, subject matter, research theme, and field monitoring were
modified. Suggestions for modifications were on methodology, subject matter, duration,
insect/disease zoo, research design, AESA and the number of hours. Topics suggested for
iii
future FFS were organic farming, soil fertility management, and integrated pest
management.
Based on the findings and conclusions, the following are recommended:
Younger FFS core trainers with appropriate fields of specialization, and with
potential skills and competencies for development are needed.
FFS–IPM has widespread benefits accruing to public health, environmental protection,
economy and education. The program should therefore be placed in a broader rural
development perspective. The DA can lead by pooling multi-sectoral resources to support
a comprehensive program on safe food production.
Though the program is LGU-led, the DA is still recognized as the source of fund.
Thus, DA should institute a strong monitoring and evaluation scheme; treat FFS as a
developmental program; and use graduates of FFS as partners in implementing
agriculture interventions. This way, confusions by the agriculture technicians and the
farmers about programs and projects implemented by the DA is corrected.
The following have to be re-examined to improve the quality and cost
effectiveness of the training program: the duration, number of participants, time of day,
number of hours, and conduct of insect/disease zoos; and the causes of the differences in
the degree of implementation among the provinces. The DA should accept training and
workshop participants only where it is strategically important, and where the training
effort can have maximum effect.
To sustain the attendance of farmers, the objectives and goals of the program
should be clear, and understood during the ground working activities.
iv
Trainers must have new and relevant information for every session to maintain the
interest of farmers.
An exit plan should be developed with FFS-IPM graduates. The LGUs should
develop mechanisms to keep track of agricultural production management practices of
farmers. Farmers can also be encouraged to pay acceptable training costs, so farmers will
better appreciate learning and improve their knowledge and skills.
The specific suggestions and comments concerning the implementation of FFS-
IPM with regards the features and characteristics should be evaluated further for their
usefulness to the program.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
i
Abstract
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
i
Table of Contents
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
vi
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
Conceptual Framework
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
Statement of the Problem
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
Hypotheses of the Study
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
Population and Locale of the Study .
.
.
.
.
18
Data Collection Instruments .
.
.
.
.
.
23
Data Collection Procedures .
.
.
.
.
.
25
Treatment of Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Profile of Respondents
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
Socio-Economic Profile
.
.
.
.
. .
.
29
FFS Experiences
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
36
Relationships of Motivations/Goals of Trainers
in Implementing FFS .
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
Motivations/Goals of Trainers in
Implementing FFS .
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
Reasons of Trainers in Implementing
vi
the FFS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
46
Relationships Between Motivational
Factors and Extent of FFS – IPM
Features and Characteristics’
Implementation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
47
Extent of Implementation of the Farmer Field
School Features and Characteristics .
.
.
.
.
50
Degree of Adaptability of FFS
Features and Characteristics .
.
.
.
.
.
50
Degree of Appropriateness of FFS
Features and Characteristics .
.
.
.
.
.
53
Degree of Relevance of FFS Features
and Characteristics for the Future
FFS Implementation .
.
.
.
.
.
.
55
Perceived Degree of Effect of FFS on
the Income and Profit and
Adoption of IPM
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
57
Relationship Between Socio-Economic Factors of
Trainers and Extent of FFS – IPM Features and
Characteristics Implementation
.
.
.
.
..
59
Reasons of Farmers in Attending
the FFS regular sessions
.
.
.
.
.
..
62
Motivations/Goals of Farmers in Applying the
Knowledge and Skills Gained from FFS
.
.
.
..
64
Degree of Application of Knowledge and
vii
Skills Gained from the FFS .
.
.
.
.
.
67
Degree of Changes Made and Suggestions in
the FFS-IPM Features and Characteristics .
.
.
.
71
Degree of Changes Made in the FFS-IPM
Features and Characteristics .
.
.
.
.
.
71
Suggested Modifications in the FFS-IPM
Features and Characteristics .
.
.
.
.
..
73
Suggested Topics for Future FFS
.
.
.
.
.
79
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
81
Conclusions .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
84
Recommendations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
87
LITERATURE CITED
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
90
APPENDICES
A. Sample Letter to the Respondents .
.
.
.
.
94
B. Interview Schedule (For FFS Trainers/Facilitators) .
.
.
95
C. Interview Schedule (For FFS Farmer Graduates) .
.
.
104
D. Acronyms .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
109
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .
.
.
.
.
.
.
110
viii
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
The Farmer Field School (FFS), a participatory training and
research approach started in Southeast Asia twenty years ago. Since that time,
FFS rapidly spread globally due to the positive impacts experienced by most
countries that used it. The FFS has drawn widespread enthusiasm from
international donors to use the strategy as a platform for rural development. In
2008, Palengleng noted that FFS was used as a conduit to develop livelihood,
rural enterprises, and small-scale commercial agriculture development projects.
FFS fostered rural development and encouraged attainment of critical mass to
upscale the economic status of farmers. The FFS sets out to educate local people
to enhance their capability for informed decision-making in response to what are
always context-dependent pest problems, and thus also for adaptive management
(Van den Berg, 2004).
FFS started as a crop-based Integrated Pest Management (IPM) -
promoting strategy. But now, FFS methodology is used for a wide range of rural
(and even urban) learning activities (Global FFSNet, 2008).
The FFS is described as a “school without walls” (IIBC, 1996), and based
on adult education principles. It is a continuous one-season-long hands-on,
experiential participatory training and research activity that builds on processes of
2
group learning and experimentation. It also serves as a venue by which farmers
and trainers share their personal experiences, observations and concepts on crop
production management. Thus, FFS creates a more scientific understanding of the
crop or livestock agro-ecosystems. A summary of the definition of FFS from
various sources indicates that FFS is a “down-to-earth” participatory activity for
training and research that is facilitated by skilled trainers with farmers themselves
making crop management decisions. This ultimately leads to better understanding
about safe food production while increasing income and profit by the farmers and
enhancing biodiversity.
The FFS was first introduced in the Philippines in 1992 for IPM in rice
husbandry, patterned from Indonesia’s experiences in 1989. In 1993, FFS in
vegetable production was first piloted. This vegetable FFS project was a multi-
sectoral endeavor, and supported by the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization (UNFAO), the Highland Agriculture Development Project-
Department of Agriculture (HADP-DA), Cordillera Administrative Region
(CAR), and with the cooperation of the Local Government Unit (LGU) of Atok,
Benguet. From this modest start, FFS has grown into a self - reliant national
program that is wholly funded from the national government's resources
equivalent to about US$3.0 million annually (Binamira, 2001).
Pursuant to Memorandum Order 126 of May 1993, The National IPM
Program locally dubbed as Kasaganaan ng Sakahan at Kalikasan or
3
KASAKALIKASAN served as the legal basis for implementing the FFS on IPM
in the Philippines. This makes IPM as the standard approach to crop husbandry,
and using the FFS approach. Today, the program has expanded, not only to other
major crops such as rice, corn, vegetables, and fruit trees, but also to other
industries like animal production, agro-forestry, and child nutrition. FFS is also
integrated into the curriculum of some vocational arts courses.
For the past 18 years since FFS was introduced to the Philippines, the
name of the program and the implementation procedures have not changed even
with the frequent changes of administration in both local and national government
units. It is also one of the government program interventions that has reached the
far-flung rural communities, even those without roads, and accessed only by foot
trails.
The agriculture technicians from the Local Government Units (LGUs), are
tasked to make proposals and conduct FFS in their respective areas. These FFS
agricultural technicians graduate from a one-season-long “Training of Trainers
(TOT) or Training of Specialist (TOS) in Farmer Field School on Integrated Pest
Management”. Thus, the direct implementation of FFS is the responsibility and
work of trained agriculture technicians in the local government units. In CAR,
Visayan (2003) claimed that all FFS trainers have high managerial competence in
terms of planning, directing, decision making, resource management, planning
and preparing budgetary requirements for the project. On the average, one FFS-
4
IPM trainer facilitated a total of seven batches of farmer field schools in his entire
period of conducting FFS (DA - RFU, CAR, 2004).
Although the implementation of FFS in the Cordillera Administrative
Region is continuing, a steady decline is observed in the number of FFS
conducted in all the provinces since 1993 up to the present (Figure 1). Some of
the reasons in the decline can be attributed to the decreasing number of trained
FFS trainers due to mandatory change of duties and responsibilities of trained
LGU agriculture technicians to other offices as an effect of promotion, transfer of
assignment and retirement as observed in the profile of trainers (ATI-CAR, 2008).
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Rice
HVCC
Corn
Total
Figure 1. Trend in the implementation of FFS in the Cordillera Administrative
Region from 1993 to 2004 (Source: DA-RFU, CAR)
5
Other trainers simply stopped conducting FFS. They claimed that they did
not have support from their local executives or from other concerned institutions.
Motivation can increase productivity level in several times and that highly
motivated workers can produce up to 15% more goods and services under the
same work conditions as their non or less-motivated co-workers
(http://www.essay-911.com/samples/Theories.htm, 2009). Along this line, it is
important to know what motivates the remaining few trainers to persistently
conduct FFS.
Moreover, with the widespread use of FFS for numerous crops, livestock,
agroforestry, in child nutrition, at various agro-ecological systems; diverse socio–
cultural and economic situations; and different constraints and purposes may have
led to innovations or variations in the process. These innovations need to be noted
and re-examined in terms of their: a) positive contributions to the further
development of the approach, b) the extent to which they reflect the core
principles underlying FFS and IPM, and c) efforts to maintain the quality of the
program.
A number of earlier studies delved much on evaluating FFS impact and
focused on the farmers and the FFS program itself. However, sentiments of direct
implementers and the agriculture technologists also have to be known and have to
be heard. It is therefore imperative that after 18 years of implementing the FFS –
IPM as a farmer participatory training and research approach, there is a need to
6
assess the factors affecting and influencing FFS implementation as experienced
by the farmers and from the viewpoint of the trainer – facilitators to meet
changing environments.
Pontius et al. (2002) mentioned that leading an FFS appears easy in the
hands of an experienced facilitator/trainer. The key is confidence and this only
comes with experience. Facilitation by the trainer is one aspect that affects
implementation when facilitators feel they lack technical knowledge, that leads to
lack of self confidence resulting to lecturing; mastery of the facilitation skills is
needed to conduct an FFS; and inadequate support and supervision by concerned
trainers. In Bangladesh, CARE discovered that most of their Farmer IPM trainers
found social recognition to be more important than the potential of earning money
as farmer IPM trainers. Money is not the most important motivational issue.
Damag as cited by Legaspi (1995) mentioned that higher income is not
necessary for farmers to be able to later adopt technologies. Farm size, family
income, capital source do not affect adoption of technology. The low level of
farmer education is a significant factor to extension work and the low educational
attainment is associated with conservatism and reluctance to accept new improved
technology. The institutional environment, commercial chemicals, extension
support incentives and logistics play a vital role in the technology adoption
process (Drabick as cited by Legaspi, 1995).
7
In view of the foregoing, the results of this study may provide information
and clues on how to re-energize the program and improve the quality of the
training. The “technology transfer” approach to agricultural extension continues
to decline due to limited success (Gallagher et al., 2009). In its place, FFS is part
of the growing interest in “Education for All” and continuing education. And the
current trend of FFS moving outside the scope of agriculture is expected to
continue. The adaptation of FFS principles, features, and characteristics is needed
to look at gaps in the implementing process.
Moreover, findings of this study can be used as basis in developing
relevant follow-up and upscaling activities for the FFS program. Is it expected
that the results of this study will provide vital information in FFS implementation
to enhance better adoption of IPM technologies.
Conceptual Framework
FFS Implementation
The direct implementation of FFS is done by trained agriculture
technicians in the local government units who are equipped with the knowledge
and skills in running the program. The process by which FFS is implemented
observes the principles, features and characteristics of IPM – FFS that served as
the standard protocol. This entails a rigid series of preparatory activities like
budget approval by local executives, community organization, procurement of
8
supplies and materials, preparation of learning materials during sessions, and
preparing and facilitating weekly activities.
FFS is a dynamic, rather than a static process. Owing to its principles and
features, by design, its implementation needs much time, patience and effort by
the implementer to complete a continuing one crop-season research and training
course. There are unrecorded allegations, comments, and feedbacks alleging that
the “standard” process is not being followed. The question is, do the deviations
really diminish the quality of the FFS process? do these modifications result in a
better FFS due to the innovativeness of the trainer-facilitator? Cottingham (1998)
stated that the danger with standardization is distortion from the basic principles.
Clearly, it is difficult to define what constitutes distortion as opposed to creative
adaptation/evolution. The data gathered from this study would be used as input to
develop upscaling activities for FFS.
Archer (1997) reported that the most effective approach at the trainer-
facilitator’s level is that, the trainer-facilitators have to be actively engaged in
formulating their own techniques; taking ownership of the approach and
internalizing it. Without this internalization, they will have a very limited ability
to effectively facilitate a process to others.
With respect to FFS farmer-graduates going back to ”conventional”
farming, it was stated during a Global FFS forum in 2008 that FFS is not in all
cases the most effective or efficient approach, but rather a learning tool and not a
9
purpose of its own (Global FFSNet, 2008). Schueneman (1992) mentioned that
production - related pest management is extremely important and constantly
changing. These remarks give ideas as to whether the lessons learned are still
practiced and adapted by the farmer graduates as time goes by. There are
reportedly thousands of farmer- graduates of FFS - IPM in rice, corn, vegetables
and other commodities. But regardless of the number of graduates, the
adaptability of lessons learned at present has not been documented up to this day.
Finding out the state of adaptation of lessons learned by the farmers can give
further insights for the improvement of the FFS process.
Other factors that may affect the implementation of the FFS process may
include age, sex, educational background, field of specialization, professional
experiences of trainers and the trainer – facilitators themselves.
The basic implementation guidelines and schedules are perceived by some
as too rigid – not allowing flexibility (Gallagher et al., 2009). Working on the
core principles of participation and adult learning, there are lots of innovative FFS
applications coming out of the work of skilled FFS trainer – facilitators. Any
innovation, deviation and modification as a result of the adaptability to local
circumstances serve as continuing challenges needed for an effective FFS
program implementation.
10
IPM – FFS Principles
The implementation of FFS is anchored and guided by the IPM and FFS
principles, its features and characteristics that make it unique from any
conventional extension, training and research methods.
IPM principles (KASAKALIKASAN):
1) Grow a healthy crop,
2) Conserve natural enemies,
3) Observe the field regularly, and
4) Farmer become expert in their own field
The FFS principles according to Medina and Callo, 1997; and IIBC, 1996
mention that:
1) The field is the primary learning resource. All learning activities take
place in the field or are based on what is happening in the field. The
field therefore, becomes the main reference, the primary learning
material, and focus of learning.
2) Experience forms the basis of learning. All learning is based on
farmers’ experiences in the field. Activities that take place in the field
form the basis of discussion and analysis by farmers who arrive at
concepts which they test and improve through further field activities.
11
3) Decision-making guides the learning process. FFS focuses on the
analysis of the agro-ecosystem of the crop. Such analysis help farmers
gain insight into the ecological interactions in the field.
4) Training last throughout the entire growing season of the crop. The
IPM “field school” lasts through out the entire growing season of the
crop. Farmers acquire a firm understanding of the relevant IPM
concepts for each stage of the crop, from planting to harvesting.
5) The curriculum is detailed and coordinated with local conditions of the
field school. The field school curriculum is based on the materials used
for the IPM training of trainers (TOTs). The materials selected are
based on the appropriateness to the field school, the local condition of
the field, and the problems and needs of FFS farmers.
Features and Characteristics of Farmer Field School (KASAKALIKASAN
Program Document, 1994, and Palengleng, 2008):
Features and Characteristics:
1. Methodology
- discovery based, hands-on, experiential,
use of guide questions and facilitation
techniques
2. Duration
- Season-long, one crop cycle - planting to
harvesting, meet ½ day per week
3. No. of Hours and
- Half day and morning sessions
Time of Day
4. No. of Participants
- 25-30 farmers
12
5. Venue
- Study plots as main learning resource,
discussions under a shade near study
plots
6. Curriculum
- Based on TOT material for IPM
7. Subject Matter
- IPM focused on Integrated Pest
Management, Integrated Nutrient
Management
8. Number of Trainers
- at least 2 trained trainer facilitating one
FFS
9. Field
Monitoring
- Conduct of weekly AESA
Technique
10. Research Theme
- Farmers’ Crop Protection Practices
versus IPM Practices
11. Conduct of Field
- Normally at harvesting time
Day and
Graduation
The study assumes that the FFS process is complex and dynamic. Many
factors or variables determine whether the underlying principles, features and
characteristics of FFS – IPM are still adaptable, appropriate, and relevant to
address the effects of a changing environment and the needs of farmers for better
incomes and profits.
Figure 2 illustrates the schematic diagram of the study. This shows the
relationship of the independent, the dependent variables as well as the intervening
variables.
The independent variables which consist of the IPM – FFS principles,
features and characteristics are assessed and measured in terms of their
13
adaptability, appropriateness and relevance to future FFS implementation and
their influences on the application of IPM technologies. According to Pontius et
al. (2002), FFS has a standard model which establishes a norm for the
implementation of an FFS. There is plenty of room for variation as long as the
resulting process is learner-centered, participatory and relies on an experiential
learning approach. There have been variations in the standard rice IPM FFS
model and different situations call for adaptations. When an FFS is conducted in a
crop other than rice, there are necessarily changes based on factors such as the
key growth stages of the crop, local cropping patterns and specific local problems.
Any FFS should rely on the same process; it is the content that changes as the FFS
is conducted with different crops. The core principles, features and characteristics
underpin any FFS - IPM. The variations in the FFS - IPM models are affected by
the intervening variables; the trainers’ as well as the farmers’ socio-economic and
motivating factors.
The effectiveness of the FFS-IPM principles, features and characteristics
are determined according to their adaptability, appropriateness, and relevance to
farmers or groups of farmers which are mentioned as low, moderate or high. The
extent by which the FFS-IPM principles, features and characteristics are
implemented are influenced by the trainers’ and farmer trainees’ socio-economic
backgrounds and motivations. The changes or innovations made were identified
as no change or modified.
14
DEPENDENT
INDEPENDENT
VARIABLES
VARIABLES
Extent of FFS - IPM
FFS – IPM
Implementation
• Principles
• Features and
Characteristics
• Trainers’ application of
principles, features and
characteristics
Adaptability
- high
- moderate
- low
INTERVENING
Appropriateness
VARIABLES
- high
- moderate
- low
FFS Trainer-Facilitator
Relevance
• Socio-Economic Factors
high
• Motivational Factors
moderate
low
Changes/Innovations
FFS Farmer Graduate
- as is
• Socio-Economic Factors
- modified
• Farmers’ Application of
• Motivational Factors
IPM Technologies
- high
- moderate
- weak
Figure 2. Paradigm of the study
15
Statement of the Problem
The study determined the factors affecting the implementation of Farmer
Field School Integrated Pest Management in the Cordillera Administrative
Region.
This study aimed to provide answers to the following questions:
1. What is the profile of respondents?
2. What is the relationship between the motivating factors and the extent
of FFS implementation, and the reasons in implementing the FFS approach?
3. What is the extent of FFS implementation along adaptability,
appropriateness, relevance of the principles, features and characteristic of IPM –
FFS with respect to: a) Methodology; b) Duration of the Training; c) Number of
Participants; d) Time of Day; e) Number of Hours; f) Subject Matter; g) Sequence
of the Activities; h) Research Theme; i) Research Design; j) Field Monitoring
Techniques – Weekly AESA; k) Conduct of Insect/Disease Zoos; l) Conduct of
Field Day and Graduation; and m) Calculation of Incomes and Profits and the
perceived effects to income and profits as well as the application of IPM
technologies?
4. What is the relationship between the socio-economic factors and the
extent of FFS implementation?
16
5. What are the reasons of farmers in attending FFS sessions, motivations
in applying the knowledge and skills gained from the FFS training, and degree of
application of learning?
6. What is the degree of change in the FFS features and characteristics?
Hypotheses of the Study
Based on the specific problems, the following hypotheses are put forward
for testing:
1.a) There are no significant differences in the motivating factors and
reasons in implementing FFS;
1.b) There is no relationship between the motivating factors and the extent
of FFS implementation;
2. The are no significant differences in the extent of FFS - IPM
implementation in terms of the adaptability, appropriateness, and relevance of the
principles, features and characteristic of IPM – FFS with respect to: a)
Methodology; b) Duration of the Training; c) Number of Participants; d) Time of
Day; e) Number of Hours; f) Subject Matter; g) Sequence of the Activities; h)
Research Theme; i) Research Design; j) Field Monitoring Techniques – Weekly
AESA; k) Conduct of Insect/Disease Zoos l) Conduct of Field Day and
Graduation; and m) Calculation of Incomes;
17
3. There is no relationship between the socio-economic factors of trainers
on the extent of FFS implementation;
4.a) There are no significant differences between the reasons in attending
the FFS sessions and the motivational factors in adopting the learning gained from
FFS training;
4.b) The level of application of learning by the IPM – FFS farmer
graduates is significantly higher than low adoption;
5. There are no significant changes in the features and characteristics of
FFS.
18
METHODOLOGY
This section presents the research design, population and locale of the
study, data collection instruments, data collection procedures and treatment of
data.
Research Design
The study used statistical computations to determine correlations using
both quantitative and qualitative data. This design enabled the researcher to
establish any relationships that existed to influence the hypothesized extent of
FFS implementation. Both the quantitative and qualitative approach helped the
researcher to look at any suggestions in improving future FFS.
Population and Locale of the Study
There were two groups of respondents in the study. The first group
consisted of 53 trainers or 43% of the active trainers who conducted FFSs and
who were trained either in the Training of Specialists, Training of Trainers or
Crash Courses. The second group comprised of 150 FFS farmer graduates from
1993 to the present and who were trained in the different commodities. The
breakdown of respondents in each province is shown in Table 1.
19
Table 1. Distribution of respondents by province and municipality
NUMBER
PROVINCE
MUNICIPALITY
Trainer
Farmers
Abra (OPAg)
2
-
Bangued
1
6
Lagangilang
1
5
La Paz
1
7
Pennarubia
1
3
Pidigan
1
3
Apayao (OAS)
1
-
Luna
4
10
Pudtol
1
5
Sta Marcela
-
5
Benguet (OPAg)
1
-
Atok
3
8
Kibungan
-
4
Trinidad
3
2
Tuba
2
9
Ifugao (PAENRO)
5
-
Alfonso Lista
4
23
Kiangan
-
3
Lamut
1
-
Kalinga (OAS)
1
-
Pinukpuk
1
5
Rizal
2
6
Tabuk
8
24
Mt. Province (OPAg)
4
-
Bauko
2
6
Bontoc
2
11
Natonin
1
4
Tadian
-
1
Total
53
150
20
The study covered the six provinces of the Cordillera Administrative
Region (Figures 3 and 4). The provinces of Benguet and Mt. Province are the
major semi-temperate vegetable growing areas that supply 70% of the total
vegetable needs of the country (Cheng and Bersamira, 1997). Kalinga is known
as the rice granary of CAR and also has considerable corn production. The
provinces of Apayao, Ifugao and Abra produce rice and corn as their main
agricultural commercial crops.
According to DA-RFU, CAR (2009), the Cordillera Administrative
Region conducted two Training of Specialists (TOS) on IPM – FFS of
Vegetables. These were held in Mt. Province and Benguet in 1994 and 1995 to
train a core of vegetable FFS – IPM Specialists. Another two Training of Trainers
(TOT) on IPM of Vegetables were conducted in Benguet in 1994 and 2001 to
capacitate the local government units (LGU) agriculture technologists. Four TOT
on FFS - IPM for rice were hosted in the provinces of Kalinga, Apayao, Ifugao
and Abra in 1995, 1996, 1997, and 2000 respectively. Lastly, one TOT on FFS -
IPM for Corn was conducted in Ifugao in 2003. Participants of the above courses
came from the local government units’ agricultural services in the provincial and
municipal levels as well as from the national government agencies.
21
Figure 3. Location of the study area (Cordillera Administrative Region) in the
Philippines
22
Figure 4. Map of the study area - The Cordillera Administrative Region
23
The computation of the sample size relative to the population used the
following formula (Broto, 2008).
Formula:
n = ___N___
1 + Ne2
Where :
n
= sample size
N
= population size
e2
= margin of error
Data Collection Instrument
A survey questionnaire was used to collect information needed for the
quantitative portion. It consisted of a combination of structured and open ended
questions. Guided questions were also used to gather relevant information needed
for the qualitative portion. Secondary data were sourced-out from printed
documents, internet and books to compliment data collected.
The quantitative data covered socio-economic factors; trainers’
experiences, FFS related trainings attended and facilitated; motivational factors in
conducting FFS as well as the adaptation of learning from the FFS training and
research by the farmer graduates. In some instances, these data were validated
through informal group and individual discussions. Key informants interviews,
and informal group discussions were used in the qualitative approach.
24
The survey forms or questionnaires were pre-tested in Kalinga. The
questionnaires were then revised according to the comments and responses of the
respondents. Items found irrelevant were deleted, while some questions were
modified to facilitate easy responses from respondents.
All primary data were collected using a pre-tested questionnaire
(Appendices B and C). These instruments covered all the variables analyzed in
relation to the hypotheses of the study. The instrument was categorized as
follows:
Part 1 – this portion covers three sections:
a) Socio – economic aspects (age, sex, education, field of specialization,
position in governments office, and current designations);
b) FFS experiences (type of training attended, year graduated from
training, number of years conducting FFS, and number of FFS conducted);
c) FFS training, related trainings attended (kind of commodity during,
training attended, number of FFS training courses attended; number of
FFS related consultation and workshops attended, and number of training
and workshops facilitated.
Part 11 – Motivational factors and reasons in implementing FFS approach for
training and research.
Part 111 – Extent of FFS – IPM implementation of the FFS-IPM features
principles, and characteristics in terms of the adaptability, appropriateness,
25
relevance, adherence and FFS effect on the income and profit of farmers
and adaptability of IPM technologies
Part IV – Degree of application of knowledge and skills gained from the training
by farmers.
Data Collection Procedures
The first level of data collection was done at the regional level where the
IPM Program (KASAKALIKASAN) documents were accessed and reviewed for
relevant information needed. Data pertaining to the list of IPM – FFS training
activities and the list of graduates were obtained from the regional IPM-FFS
coordinating unit office, regional field unit of the Department of Agriculture –
CAR. These data served as the basis in determining the respondents from the
provinces. The trainer respondents were selected based on the following criteria:
a) must be a graduate of a season long training of either TOS, TOT or crash
course on IPM – FFS of any commodity, b) must have implemented Farmer Field
School after graduating from the season long training, and c) is still connected
with the agriculture sector. Please take note that not all graduates of any of the
above season long training implemented FFS after their training. The farmer
respondents were randomly selected from the FFS conducted by the trainer
respondents.
26
Letters asking permission to collect data and request for assistance from
the trainer in collecting data from farmers were delivered to the Provincial
Agriculturists in selected municipalities. Another letter to the identified trainer -
respondents was attached to the individual set of questionnaires. The second level
of data gathering was the conduct of interviews with trainers.
The third level was the data collection with the farmers. Generally, groups
of farmers from a place were assembled, and interviews were done at one time.
The respondents fill up the form as interviewers guide the process. Short group
discussions were done after the filling up of forms to gather qualitative
information.
Treatment of Data
The data were tabulated and categorized. Descriptive statistical tools such
as frequency distribution, percentages, ranking, and weighted mean were used. To
test the significant differences of the means, Cochran’s Q-test, and analysis of
variance were used with the SPSS program. The Cochran’s Q-test was applied in
determining the respondents’ motivational factors and reasons in implementing
the FFS and the suggestions for modifications and topics for the upscaling of FFS
activities.
The analysis of variance was employed in the comparison of the extent of
FFS implementation in terms of the adaptability, appropriateness and relevance of
27
the features and characteristics of FFS - IPM and IPM technology adaptation by
provinces. The values under the F-distribution served as basis for rejecting or
accepting the hypothesized extent of FFS implementation. Thus, the hypothesized
value is rejected if Fc is lesser than 0.05 level of significance otherwise, the
hypothesized value is accepted.
The respondents’ extent of FFS implementation was correlated to selected
social and motivational factors with the use of Point Biserial correlation analysis
to test for coefficiency. A 0.05 level of significance was used in all the analysis
made.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This portion of the study answers the following specific problems:
1. What is the profile of respondents?
2. What is the relationship between the motivating factors and the extent
of FFS implementation, and the reasons in implementing the FFS approach?
3. What is the extent of FFS implementation along adaptability,
appropriateness, relevance of the principles, features and characteristic of IPM –
FFS with respect to: a) Methodology; b) Duration of the Training; c) Number of
Participants; d) Time of Day; e) Number of Hours; f) Subject Matter; g) Sequence
of the Activities; h) Research Theme; i) Research Design; j) Field Monitoring
Techniques – Weekly AESA; k) Conduct of Insect/Disease Zoos; l) Conduct of
Field Day and Graduation; and m) Calculation of Incomes and Profits and the
perceived effects to income and profits as well as the application of IPM
technologies?
4. What is the relationship between the socio-economic factors and the
extent of FFS implementation?
5. What are the reasons of farmers in attending FFS sessions, motivations
in applying the lessons learned from the FFS training, and degree of application of
learning?
6. What is the degree of change in the FFS features and characteristics?
29
Profile of Respondents
Socio-Economic Profile
Sex, age and civil status of trainers. There were more female respondents
(58.49%) than males (Table 2). The female ages ranged from 35 to 61 years,
while the males ranged from 37 to 59 years old. More than 24 % of the male
respondents were in the age bracket of 41- 45 years old. This was followed by a
20.75 % age bracket of 46 – 50 years old. There were more middle aged FFS
trainers than the younger ones. For the civil status, there is only one single trainer
respondent.
In table 3, there were more female farmer respondents (54 %) than males
(46 %). Most of the farmers were in the 46 -50 age bracket (26.67 %), followed
by age ranging from 51 – 55 (23.33 %) and 41 – 45 (16.67%).
Comparing the age range of the two groups of respondents, Figure 5
shows a bell-shaped normal population distribution where most of the respondents
were of middle ages (41- 45 and 46 – 50 years old), with fewer younger ages (23
– 40 years old) and older respondents (56 – 70 years old) involved in the FFS
training and research activities.
30
Table 2. Age and sex of trainer respondents
AGE
FREQUENCY
TOTAL
PERCENT
BRACKET
FEMALE
MALE
30 – 35
2
0
2
3.77
36 – 40
3
5
8
15.09
41 – 45
6
7
13
24.53
46 – 50
7
4
11
20.75
51 – 55
7
4
11
20.75
56 – 60
5
2
7
13.21
61 – 65
1
0
1
1.89
Total
31
22
53
100.00
Percent
58.49
41.51
Table 3. Age and sex of farmer respondents
AGE
FREQUENCY
TOTAL
PERCENT
BRACKET
FEMALE
MALE
23 – 29
2
1
3
2.00
30 – 35
5
3
8
5.33
36 – 40
7
5
12
8.00
41 – 45
12
13
25
16.67
46 – 50
18
22
40
26.67
51 – 55
20
15
35
23.33
56 – 60
11
7
18
12.00
61 – 65
2
2
4
2.67
66 – 75
4
1
5
3.33
Total
81
69
150
100.00
Percent
54.00
46.00
31
30
26.67
25
24.53
23.33
Trainers
20.75
20.75
Farmers
20
t
16.67
e
r
c
e
n
15
15.09
P
13.21
12
10
8
5.33
5
2.67
3.33
3.77
2
1.89
0
0
0
23 - 29
30 - 35
36 - 40
41 - 45
46 - 50
51 - 55
56 - 60
61 - 65
66 - 75
Age Bracket
Figure 5. Relationship between the age brackets of trainers and farmer
respondents
Educational attainment. Figure 6 shows that 43 or 81% of the trainer
respondents finished bachelor’s degree while the other 10 or 19% had masters’
degree. None among the respondents had doctoral degrees.
All farmer respondents indicated they attended school (Figure 7). Fifty
two percent (52%) reached high school; 31% attended college level; and 17%
attended elementary education. This shows a high degree of education among the
farmer respondents.
Fields of specialization. Table 8 shows nine major groups of specialization
of trainer respondents, namely; crop science (agronomy and horticulture), with
32
PhD
0 (0%)
Elem
MS
Educ
10 (19%)
26
College
(17%)
46
(31%)
BS
High
43 (81%)
School
78
(52%)
Figure 6. Educational attainment
Figure 7. Educational attainment
of trainer respondents
of farmer respondents
Home
Soil Science
Mgt/Nutrition/Tec
Animal
8%
h
Science/Vet Med
8%
Forestry
6%
2%
Farm
Mechanization
Crop
2%
Protection(Entom/
Extension/Rural
Plt Patho)
Dev't
2%
8%
Crop
Science(Agro/Hort
Economics/Agribu
i)
siness
56%
8%
Figure 8. Field of specialization of respondents
56%; economics/agribusiness, extension/rural development, soil science, and
animal science/veterinary medicine, with 8% each, home management/home
33
technology/nutritionist with 6%; and farm mechanization, forestry, and crop
protection (entomology and plant pathology) with 2% each. The figure shows a
wide diversity of field of specialization working on IPM of various crops using
the farmer field school approach.
Positions of trainers in offices. The agriculture technologists comprise the
bulk of trainers (65%). The municipal agriculturists (8%) here were former
technologists promoted as municipal agriculturist (Figure 9). The higher positions
such as senior agriculturist, agriculturist l and ll are positions in the provincial
agriculture office. Normally, the provincial staff served as support staff to
municipal technicians in the conduct of FFS.
Municipal
Agric.
4 ( 8%)
Sr.
Agriculturist
Ag
1 (2%)
Technolo-
gist
35 (65%)
Agriculturist
1/11
13 (25%)
Figure 9. Current position of trainer respondents
34
Current designations of trainer respondents. Figure 10 shows that all the
respondents were designated as coordinators or report officers or focal persons in
the different banner programs and projects. Twenty three (46.4%) of the
respondents were rice coordinators; followed by high value commercial crops
(17%); corn and in rural organizations which include cooperatives, farmers
associations, rural improvement clubs and 4-H clubs. Some, they mentioned that
due to their designations, their time devoted to FFS has somehow been diluted.
Average savings and earnings from practicing IPM. On the average, the
estimated savings of farmers due to their application of the IPM technologies was
8
Others
3
Rural Org'n
1
Fisheries
2
Livestock
23
Rice
7
Corn
9
HVCC
0
5
10
15
20
25
No of Respondents
Figure 10. Current designation of trainer respondents
35
50% from their usual expense on cost of pesticide, fertilizer and labor with 54.97,
51.90 and 43.20% respectively as shown in Table 4. The highest saving was due
to the reduction in pesticides use with 44.97%. Farmers also realized an increase
of 16.13% in production, 16.61% increase in income and 15.49% increase in
profit. The increase in income and profit is attributed to the increase in production
and reduced inputs from pesticide and fertilizer. Though this result is not exactly
quantified, it surpassed the PhP500 cost saving reported by SEARCA, 1997
(Medina and Callo, 1997). As one group of corn farmers from Kalinga were one
in saying during the interview:
“Dinmakkel ti apit mi ta nagsukat kami ti barayti ti imula
mi metten. Tattan, saan kami nga ag-spray, tractor ti aglinis, e-
rotabet mi jay nag-anian min no malpas apit sunga malotlot idiay
metlang pagmulaan ket isu ti abono. Idi kadaanan pay ti
imulmula mi, ado ti peste, pooranmi mi ti nag-anian mi ken
magastoan kami ti aglinis ta mano-mano met. Tattan,, no adda
kwarta mi, igatang mi ti organic nga abono”.
(“Our production increased because we changed our local
varieties with new ones – referring to hybrid corn. Now, we don’t
spray, no manual weeding, instead we use tractor to weed and we
chop the stubbles using a tractor to be mixed into the soil after
harvest to decompose as fertilizers. When we had been using the
traditional varieties, there were lots of pests, we spray, do manual
labor for weeding, and we burn the stubbles. Now, when we have
money, we buy organic fertilizers”).
36
Table 4. Estimated average of savings and earnings of farmers from practicing
IPM
BENEFITS
AMOUNT/VOL (%)
1. Cost of pesticide inputs
54.97
2. Cost of fertilizer inputs
51.90
3. Cost of labor
43.20
4 Increase in production
16.19
5. Increase in income
16.68
6. Increase in profit
15.56
FFS Experiences
Commodities respondents were trained. Figure 11 shows the distribution
which commodities the respondents were trained. More than half (29) of the
trainers were trained in rice (54%); 16 (30.2 %) in vegetables, and eight (15%) in
corn. Of the farmer respondents, 66 (44%) were trained in rice; 44 (29.3%) in
corn; 35 (23.5%) in vegetables; three in fruits trees; one in cutflower; and one in
livestock.
There were no season long training courses conducted for other
commodities in the region, thus there were no trainer respondents other than rice,
corn and vegetables.
The presence of FFS in other commodities implies that the trainers trained
in FFS – IPM of vegetables were able to expand their FFSs to cutflowers,
livestock and to fruit production.
37
66
Trainers
Farmers
70
60
44
t
s
e
n
50
d
n
35
o
40
29
e
s
p
f
R
30
.
o
16
o
N
20
8
0
1
0
1
0
3
10
0
Vegetables
Rice
Corn
Cutflower Livestock
Fruits
Commodities
Figure 11. Types of commodity where respondents were trained
Type of IPM – FFS training courses attended by trainers. There were three
levels of training courses where trainers were capacitated as trainers of farmer
field schools on IPM of vegetable, rice and corn: such as training of specialist;
training of trainers; or short courses termed as crash courses. There were 39 who
graduated from the training of trainers, 28 of which graduated in FFS - IPM of
rice, 6 in vegetable and 5 in corn. A total of 11 graduated in training of specialist,
8 in FFS – IPM of vegetables, 1 in rice and 2 in corn. Only three respondents
graduated from a crash course in vegetable and corn (Figure 12).
38
28
Vegetable
Rice
Corn
30
25
20
15
8
6
5
10
1
2
2
1
5
0
TOT
TOS
Crash Course
Figure 12. Type of training attended by trainer respondents
Number of years and the number of FFS each trainer conducted. More
than 39% or 21 of the respondents conducted FFSs in one to three years since
they graduated as trainers. Surprisingly, 37.74% or 20 of the respondents
conducted FFS lasting for seven to ten years. Three of the respondents also have
reached 13 to 16 years conducting farmer field school (Table 5).
Of the 53 respondents for the number of FFS they conducted, majority of
them (39.62%) conducted about six to ten farmer field schools, 32.08% conducted
about one to five FFS. Very few of the respondents conducted more than ten
farmer field schools (Table 6). It should be noted, however, that the conduct of
FFS is a team activity that may have composed of two or three trainers per FFS.
39
Table 5. Number of years each trainer conducted FFS
NO. OF YEARS
FREQUENCY
PERCENT
(BRACKET)
(N = 53)
01 – 03
21
39.62
04 – 06
8
15.09
07 – 10
20
37.74
11 – 12
1
1.89
13 – 16
3
5.66
Table 6. Number of FFS conducted by individual trainer
NUMBER OF FFS
FREQUENCY
PERCENT
(BRACKET)
(N =53)
01 – 05
17
32.08
06 – 10
21
39.62
11 – 15
3
5.66
16 – 20
1
1.89
21 – 25
3
5.66
26 – 30
4
7.55
31 – 35
2
3.77
36 – 40
0
0.00
41 – 45
1
1.89
46 – 50
1
1.89
Number of respondents graduated per year. The total number of
respondents who graduated per year is shown in Figure 13. Each year, since the
introduction of FFS – IPM in 1993, there had been farmer graduate respondents
with the highest number in 1998 with 22 and only one respondent in 1993 and
40
25
No of Farmers Respondents
22
No of Trainer Respondents
20
t
s
16
e
n
15
15
15
d
n
o
13
13
e
s
p
11
11
f
R
10
9
.
o
8
8
o
7
7
7
N
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
2
2
1
1
0
93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
Year Graduated
Figure 13. Number of respondents graduated per year
in 1994. There are no trainer respondents between 1998 to 1999 because there
were no season long training courses conducted. Instead, the existing trainers
were conducting FFSs. The season long training of trainers also stopped in 2003,
thus there were no trainer respondents after 2003.
Non season long FFS – IPM training courses attended by trainers. Figures
14 and 15 show the crash course training activities were short term activities
attended by trainers of FFS and the number of other related courses attended.
These training courses were categorized according to commodities to focus
topics. More than 50% of the respondents attended rice FFS – IPM training
courses; then corn (24%); and vegetables with 20%. This is so because there are
more trained individuals in rice than in corn and vegetables as shown in Figure
12.
41
5,
11
(9%)
13
(24%)
( 25%)
11,
(21%)
26
(56%)
9
24
(20%)
(45%)
No training
1 - 2
Vegetable
Rice
Corn
3 - 4
5 and above
Figure 14. Commodity FFS – IPM Figure 15. Number of other FFS –
crash courses attended
IPM related courses attended
Though all respondents attended the crash courses, not all of them had the
chance of attending any other FFS related courses. There were 13 (25%)
respondents who had no training at all. Forty five percent (45%) attended 1 – 2
trainings while nine percent had five and above training courses.
Cumulative attendance in FFS – IPM related trainings. The cumulative
attendance of trainers in FFS – IPM crash courses, other related courses,
consultative workshops and involvement as facilitator in FFS – IPM workshops is
shown in Figure 16. The trainers of Ifugao and Kalinga had the highest
involvements in FFS –IPM related trainings followed by Benguet and Mt.
Province. The trainers of Abra and Apayao had lesser participation in FFS – IPM
related trainings and workshops. Many of the FFS trained agriculturists from
Abra, Apayao and Mt. Province said, that their local executives did not allow
42
1
2
2
1
0
0
3
2
Mt. Prov
= 65
2
2
3
2
0
3
5
1
Kalinga
= 99
1
2
3
3
9
3
4
0
Ifugao
= 106
9
1
2
1
9
9
0
Benguet
= 67
8
7
7
4
Apayao
= 26
1
1
6
6
4
Abra
= 27
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Crash Course
FFS Related Trng
Consultative Wshops
Trng/Wshops Facilitated
Figure 16. Cumulative attendance in FFS – IPM related training activities
them to attend to the trainings especially when held outside their provinces for the
alleged reason that they did not have funds for traveling.
Relationship of Motivations/Goals
of Trainers in Implementing
Farmer Field Schools
This section presents the relationship of motivations/goals and reasons of
the trainers in conducting farmer field school as an approach in training and
research in the promotion of Integrated Pest Management in the Cordillera region.
43
Motivations/Goals of Trainers in
Implementing FFS
Table 7 shows the motivations and goals of trainers in implementing IPM
through FFS. Significant variations exist among the responses of the trainers. The
null hypothesis therefore is rejected. This corroborates what Anon (1995)
identified that the FFS - IPM technology promotion is a holistic approach that is
equally revolving around economic, health, environment, continuing education
and institutional support factors. It holds true in the study as trainers were
motivated to implement FFS – IPM in this holistic approach. Efforts had been
made to integrate agriculture and human health applying the principles of IPM to
people (Pedon, 1998).
The leading motivation/goal of agricultural extension workers in
implementing FFS-IPM is for farmers to “produce safer food (81.1%)”. This
finding follows the “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs” with health or well
being as the foundation of need before pursuing to higher level of self fulfillment
(Smeltzer and Bare, 2004). This further shows that the demand for “safer food” in
the Cordillera Region is currently recognized.
The second motivation for implementing FFS-IPM is to restore and
preserve beneficial organisms (77.4%). This is in parallel with the demand for
“safer food,” and is a requirement for a successful IPM program.
The third motivation is for farmers to reduce use of chemical inputs
(75.5%); and the fourth is to enhance biodiversity (62.3%). Both are equally
44
Table 7. Motivations/goals of trainers in implementing FFS – IPM
FREQUENCY
MOTIVATION/GOALS
PERCENT
RANK
(N=53)
Economic Benefits
Farmers to reduce chemical inputs
40
75.5
3
Higher income and profit of
32
60.4
5
farmers
Pesticide free produce commands
24
45.3
8
better price
Health Benefits
Safer food produced by farmers
43
81.1
1
Environmental Benefits
Restore and preserve beneficial
41
77.4
2
organisms
Enhance biodiversity
33
62.3
4
Continuing Education for Farmers
Regular encounter with farmers in
28
52.8
6.5
the communities
Institutional Support
Presence of strong support from
28
52.8
6.5
local executives
Incentives from the program
21
39.6
9
(money, scholarships, trainings,
others)
Qc = 57.075**
Sig. = 0.000
important and vital means in the production of safer food. To produce safer food,
the farmer has to reduce use of poisonous chemicals, and instead, considers the
use of beneficial organisms to hold insect pests and noxious pathogens in check
45
(Driesche & Bellones, 1996). In preserving beneficial organisms, farmers, are in
essence, enhancing biodiversity.
As the need and demand for safer food becomes more important, the seeds
of change for the production of safer food were already sown in FFS-IPM and
will soon grow. Trainers feel satisfaction and delighted to hear feedback from
farmer graduates. One farmer graduate from Mt. Data, Bauko (Batch 1993)
recounted:
“Ad-ado di naadal sin nan eskwelaan mi sin FFS on IPM.
No manpay adi ma-i-apply amin naadal si esa ay panamulaan,
ado di nemnemnemen no sino di mayat ay amagen sin
sumarsarruno ay panaggargardenan ta maksayan di gasto ya
manbomba si pesticide”.
(“We learned a lot of ideas and concepts in crop
production during the FFS training and research on IPM.
Though we can not apply everything we learned in one cropping
period, there are a lot to think of, on what is appropriate to do in
the following planting seasons to reduce cost and avoid spraying
pesticide”).
The trainers further implemented FFS-IPM, not only because it is a
mandate but it is strongly supported by some local executives (52.8%). In
addition, FFS-IPM provides a venue for regular continuing positive bonding of
trainers and farmers in the communities with 52.8%.
Lastly, the provision of incentives whether cash or in kind from the
program was the least motivational factor (39%) in implementing FFS.
46
Reasons of Trainers in Implementing the FFS
The reasons of trainers in implementing the FFS on IPM training and
research is shown in Table 8. Significant differences in the responses of the
trainers were observed.
The foremost reason of the trainers to implement FFS on IPM is to learn
and share knowledge and skills with farmers (84.9%). This illustrates that the
methodology of knowledge facilitation and participatory knowledge sharing is
still intact among the trainers. This finding conforms with the fundamental
principles in participatory training and research (Palengleng, 2008) that
“everybody’s view counts”; “everyone is different”, and “everyone perceives
different realities and therefore offers important contributions to a process. The
different views and experiences of people can complement each other. Thus,
mutual satisfaction is attained during the training.
Ranked as second reason, is to train farmers in IPM through research with
52.8%. This shows that the other core value of FFS, that of experiential learning,
is still apparent and the urge to do it is still strong.
The third reason with 30.2% of the trained agricultural extension workers
said that they implemented FFS to respond to office mandate. A few (5.7%) cited
that they would like to experience and evaluate own capability as FFS trainer.
This implies that some trainers are positively challenged to determine their
competence as trainers of FFS.
47
Table 8. Reasons of trainers in implementing the FFS
FREQUEN-
REASONS
PERCENT
RANK
CY
1. Respond to office mandate
16
30.2
3
2. Test IPM technologies through FFS
14
26.2
4
3. Train farmers in IPM through
28
52.8
2
research
4. Experience and evaluate own
3
5.7
5
capability as FFS trainer
5. Learn and share knowledge and
45
84.9
1
skills with farmers
Qc = 69.108**
Sig. = 0.000
Relationships Between Motivational Factors and Extent of
FFS – IPM Features and Characteristics’ Implementation
Among the five major motivational factors of trainers, higher income and
profit of farmers and enhancement of biodiversity had significant relationship
with the adaptability, and safer food produced by the farmers with the relevance
of the features and characteristics of FFS – IPM (Table 9). The more motivated
the trainer to effect higher income and profit of farmers, the lower is their
adaptability of the FFS – IPM features and characteristics. This is consistent with
the results in Table 13 that the trainers perceived degree of effect of the FFS on
the income and profit of farmers and the adoption of IPM are moderate. This
finding corroborates the findings of Ali (1997) that the adequacy of the FFS
48
Table 9. Relationships between motivational factors of and extent of the FFS –
IPM features and characteristics implementation
EXTENT OF THE FFS – IPM
FEATURES AND CHARACTERISTICS
MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS
IMPLEMENTATION
Adaptability
Appropria-
Relevance
teness
Economic Benefits
Farmers to reduce chemical
-0.03
0.05
-0.12
inputs
Higher income and profit of
-0.33*
0.08
-0.09
farmers
Health Benefits
Safer food produced by farmers
-0.09
-0.06
0.33*
Environmental Benefits
Restore and preserve beneficial
-0.26
-0.07
-0.08
organisms
Enhance biodiversity
0.37**
0.24
-0.26
Continuing Education for Farmers
Regular encounter with farmers
0.11
-0.15
-0.23
in the communities
r
= ±0 2
. 7 r
= 0
± .35
0
. 5
0
. 1
** - highly significant
scope/coverage, training time and funds ranged from adequate to fairly adequate.
This finding corroborates the findings in Table 18 where five (38%) items of the
features and characteristics were modified to be able to address other issues to
increase income such as the shift to organic farming as subject matter and
increase the duration of training (Table 19) longer interval of sessions. The more
motivated the trainer to effect the enhancement of biodiversity, the higher is their
49
adaptability of the FFS – IPM features and characteristics. The more motivated
the trainers to effect the production of safe food by the farmers, the higher they
perceived the features and characteristics of FFS – IPM relevant.
In some cases, there were obvious trade-offs between the adaptability of
features and characteristics and the weak technical competence or no support
from the mother agency or institutions relatively involved in the program, and
ensuring the technical quality of FFS. Some FFS trainers repeatedly said:
“Saan kayo met gamin nga ag-monitor (referring to the
DA-regional office) ta kitan yo ti ar-aramiden mi nga ag-FFS”.
(“You in the DA, don’t come to monitor to see what we
are doing in FFS”).
The essence of motivation according to Van der Wiele thus applies here.
In the adoption of technologies, Van der Wiele (2002) posits that the trainers and
farmers may or may not necessarily have technical questions or problems but they
merely wanted encouragement through periodic follow up farm visits and
mutually agreeable level of technical assistance. The provision of social support
ensures the adoption and continuance of agricultural practices and also alleviates
the “dependency syndrome”.
Moreover, the finding corroborates the statement in Employer-
Employee.com. (2001) as cited by Alupias (2002), that the employees’ natural
motivation relies on the fact that all people have human desires for achievement
50
and for control and power over their work. In addition they have desires for
ownership, recognition and meaning of their work.
Extent of Implementation of the Farmer Field School
Features and Characteristics
There were 13 major features and characteristics of FFS that were
independently evaluated by the respondents for their adaptability, appropriateness
and relevance.
Degree of Adaptability of FFS
Features and Characteristics
As shown in Table 10, five features and characteristics of FFS-IPM
namely: the methodology; time of the day; subject matter; research theme; and
field monitoring had significant differences among the provinces with mean
ratings ranging from 2.43 to 2.60 which are highly adaptable.
There is a high adaptability in the methodology, subject matter, research
theme and field monitoring were all obtained from Benguet, Ifugao and Kalinga,
while moderate adaptabilities were mostly noted from Abra, Apayao and Mt.
Province. The reason for higher adaptability can be attributed to the frequency of
attendance to training courses. There were more respondents from Benguet,
Ifugao and Kalinga who attended more FFS – IPM related trainings such as
refresher courses, workshops and conferences than respondents from Abra,
Apayao and Mt. Province.
5
1
51
Table 10. Degree of adaptability of the FFS features and characteristics
FEATURES AND
DEGREE OF ADAPTABILITY
F-
CHARACTERISTICS
Mt.
MEAN
DE
SIG
Abra
Apayao Benguet
Ifugao
Kalinga
VALUE
Prov
1. Methodology
2.14
2.33
2.67
2.40
2.83
2.33
2.49
H
2.74**
0.030
2. Duration
2.29
2.17
2.44
2.50
2.83
2.33
2.47
H
1.90ns
0.112
3. Number of participants
2.14
2.33
2.22
2.20
2.75
2.11
2.32
M
1.56ns
0.191
4. Time of day
2.43
2.33
2.33
2.10
2.75
1.89
2.30
M
2.91**
0.023
5. Number of hours
2.29
2.33
2.00
2.40
2.75
2.33
2.38
M
1.64ns
0.168
6. Subject matter
2.28
2.17
3.00
2.60
2.67
2.67
2.60
H
2.70**
0.023
7. Sequence of activities
2.14
2.67
2.11
2.60
2.75
2.56
2.49
H
2.22ns
0.068
8. Research theme: IPM
2.00
2.33
2.56
2.60
2.75
2.11
2.43
H
3.33**
0.012
9. Research design
2.29
2.50
2.44
2.50
2.75
2.44
2.51
H
0.65ns
0.660
10. Field monitoring (AESA)
2.14
2.17
2.67
2.60
2.75
2.78
2.57
H
2.47**
0.046
11. Conduct of insect/ disease
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.08
1.44
1.92
M
1.26ns
0.298
zoos
12. Conduct of field day/ and
2.29
2.33
2.67
2.70
2.67
2.33
2.53
H
0.90ns
0.489
graduation
13. Research Analysis
2.14
2.50
2.22
2.50
2.75
2.44
2.45
H
1.64ns
0.168
Mean
2.2
2.32
2.41
2.44
2.7
2.3
2.34
M
DE
M
M
H
H
H
M
** - significant
ns – not significant
Legend:
1.0 - 1.69 = weak (W)
1.7 - 2.39 = moderate (M)
2.4 - 3.00 = high (H)
52
The time of day which normally runs from 8:00 in the morning till 12:00
noon was rated moderately adaptable. In IPM, morning is set for FFS sessions
because it is this time when majority of the arthropods, some disease symptoms
including the vigor of the plants are in their active state, thus the best time to
monitor. The provinces of Abra and Kalinga followed the stipulated time of day,
though they stated that the time of day was too long. On the other hand, trainers
from Apayao, Benguet, Ifugao, and Mt Province found the time too short. In
Benguet and Mt. Province, it was found that farmers can stay longer in sessions.
Farmers were willing to contribute for lunch than going home hungry after a four-
hour session. This can be also attributed to the topography and distance of the
place they come from, to the FFS site. The conduct of regular “agro-ecosystem
analysis” is rated highly adaptable by majority of the trainers except trainers from
Abra and Apayao who rated with moderate adaptability.
The moderate adaptability of the features and characteristics of FFS/IPM
in Mt. Province can be attributed to the trainers’ experiences in shifting subject
matters from one commodity to another. The trainers in Mt. Province
implemented FFS in various commodities such as rice, vegetables, fruits, agro-
forestry, child nutrition, livestock and organic farming.
Among the provinces of CAR, Abra was the latest to implement FFS,
starting their training of trainers in 1999. However, Abra trainers were involved in
the Palayaman, a program using the FFS process. Similar with the province of
53
Apayao, the trainers’ experiences with PhilRice conducting the Palayamanan and
PalayCheck Models may have influenced their FFS implementation.
Degree of Appropriateness of FFS
Features and Characteristics
The degree of appropriateness significantly differed in terms of subject
matter and the conduct of agro-ecosystem analysis with 2.60 and 2.47 degrees of
appropriateness, respectively (Table 11). The trainers from the provinces of
Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga and Mt. Province found the subject matter and the
conduct of AESA highly appropriate while the trainers from the provinces of
Abra and Apayao found them as moderately appropriate. Like the adaptability
rating, the exposure of the trainers from Abra and Apayao in the Palayamanan and
Palay Check program influenced the responses of trainers about these programs
running at same time.
Across provinces, majority of the features and characteristics of FFS were
highly appropriate except the number of participants, time of day, number of
hours and conduct of insect/disease zoo that were rated moderately appropriate.
Results also show that the trainers from the provinces of Benguet, Ifugao,
Kalinga and Mt. Province regarded the features and characteristics as highly
appropriate. On the other hand, trainers from Abra and Apayao indicated that the
features and characteristics of FFS/IPM were moderately appropriate.
54
54
Table 11. Degree of appropriateness of the FFS features and characteristics
DEGREE OF APPROPRIATENESS
FEATURES AND
F-
MEAN
DE
SIG
CHARACTERISTICS
Abra
Apayao
Benguet
Ifugao
Kalinga
Mt.
VALUE
Prov.
1. Methodology
2.43
2.00
2.78
2.60
2.67
2.67
2.57
HA
2.04ns
0.090
2. Duration
2.57
2.00
2.67
2.60
2.75
2.56
2.57
HA
1.38ns
0.249
3. Number of participants
2.29
2.17
2.44
2.30
2.58
2.11
2.34
MA
0.69ns
0.633
4. Time of day
2.14
2.17
2.33
2.50
2.58
2.33
2.38
MA
0.84ns
0.530
5. Number of hours
2.14
2.17
2.44
2.40
2.58
2.22
2.36
MA
0.89ns
0.494
6. Subject matter
2.29
2.17
3.00
2.60
2.67
2.67
2.60
HA
2.78**
0.028
7. Sequence of activities
2.43
2.17
2.56
2.70
2.67
2.78
2.58
HA
1.11ns
0.370
8. Research theme: IPM
2.43
2.17
2.67
2.40
2.58
2.33
2.45
HA
0.67ns
0.650
9. Research design
2.29
2.33
2.67
2.40
2.50
2.44
2.45
HA
0.38ns
0.858
10. Field monitoring (AESA)
2.14
2.17
2.67
2.60
2.75
2.78
2.57
HA
2.47**
0.046
11. Conduct of insect/ disease
2.14
1.83
2.33
2.20
2.08
1.67
2.06
MA
1.22ns
0.315
zoos
12. Conduct of field day/ and
2.29
2.17
2.89
2.70
2.58
2.44
2.55
HA
1.79ns
0.133
graduation
13. Research data analysis
2.29
2.17
2.44
2.50
2.58
2.67
2.47
HA
0.77ns
0.574
Mean
2.30
2.13
2.61
2.50
2.58
2.44
2.46
HA
DE
MA
MA
HA
HA
HA
HA
** - significant
ns – not significant
Legend:
1.0 - 1.69 = not appropriate
1.7 - 2.39 = moderately appropriate
2.4 - 3.00 = highly appropriate
55
Degree of Relevance of FFS Features
and Characteristics for the Future
FFS Implementation
The degree of relevance of the features and characteristics of FFS - IPM is
high. However, differences among trainers in the six provinces are not significant
(Table 12). The hypothesis therefore that there is no significant difference in the
relevance of the principles, features and characteristics of the FFS – IPM is
accepted. This finding implies that whether the ratings are high or moderate, there
are no differences between and among the provinces.
The moderate relevant ratings obtained in the number of participants, time
of the day, number of hours, and the conduct of insect/disease zoos suggests
serious evaluation for efficient and effective FFS program implementation.
Comparing the overall means of provinces, the provinces of Apayao,
Benguet, Ifugao and Kalinga showed high relevance of the features and
characteristics while Abra and Mt. Province had moderate relevance.
56
56
Table 12. Degree of relevance of the FFS features and characteristics for future implementation
DEGREE OF RELEVANCE
FEATURES AND
F-
MEAN
DE
SIG
CHARACTERISTICS
Mt.
Abra
Apayao Benguet
Ifugao
Kalinga
VALUE
Prov.
1. Methodology
2.57
2.50
2.67
2.40
2.75
2.56
2.58
HR
0.46 ns
0.806
2. Duration
2.57
2.33
2.67
2.40
2.75
2.56
2.57
HR
0.65 ns
0.664
3. Number of participants
2.57
2.33
2.33
2.20
2.67
1.89
2.34
MR
1.71 ns
0.150
4. Time of day
2.14
2.33
2.33
2.40
2.67
2.22
2.38
MR
0.92 ns
0.478
5. Number of hours
2.14
2.33
2.11
2.40
2.58
2.22
2.32
MR
0.84 ns
0.531
6. Subject matter/focus topic
2.43
2.33
2.33
2.60
2.67
2.56
2.51
HR
0.69 ns
0.632
7. Sequence of activities
2.57
2.50
2.56
2.70
2.50
2.33
2.53
HR
0.38 ns
0.859
8. Research theme: IPM
2.57
2.33
2.67
2.50
2.42
2.33
2.47
HR
0.56 ns
0.730
9. Research design
2.29
2.67
2.44
2.40
2.47
2.56
2.45
HR
0.39 ns
0.850
10. Field monitoring (AESA)
2.29
2.50
2.56
2.50
2.67
2.75
2.57
HR
0.68 ns
0.642
11. Conduct insect/disease zoos
2.00
2.33
2.22
2.40
2.17
1.67
2.13
MR
1.40 ns
0.242
12. Conduct of field day/ and
2.29
2.50
2.67
2.50
2.83
2.44
2.57
HR
1.41 ns
0.237
graduation
13. Research data analysis
2.29
2.50
2.89
2.50
2.67
2.67
2.60
HR
1.23ns
0.311
Mean
2.36
2.42
2.50
2.45
2.60
2.37
2.46
HR
DE
MR
HR
HR
HR
HR
MR
** - significant
ns – not significant
Legend:
1.0 - 1.69 = not relevant (NR)
1.7 - 2.39 = moderately relevant (MR)
2.4 - 3.00 = highly relevant (HR)
57
Perceived Degree of Effect of FFS on the
Income and Profit and Adoption of IPM
Table 13 shows the perceived degree of effect of FFS-IPM on the income
- profit and adoption of IPM. The overall average shows a moderate degree of
effect of FFS from the different provinces of CAR with mean ratings of 2.37 and
2.36, respectively.
It was noted that the degree of effect of FFS on income and profit was
strong in the provinces of Ifugao, Kalinga and Mt. Province, while the trainers
from the provinces of Abra, Apayao and Benguet perceived the effects of FFS-
IPM on the income and profit of their farmers as moderate.
A moderate degree of adoption of IPM was noted significantly different
among the provinces. The provinces with high degree of effect of FFS on the
income and profit, also had a high degree of IPM adoption. The provinces with
moderate degree of effect of the FFS-IPM on income and profit, had moderate
degree of IPM adoption. When trainers were asked how many percent of their
farmer graduates adopted their learning, majority claimed that about 70% are
applied what they learned. The most evident observed technology that farmers
adopted was their being more selective in planting materials and varieties. This
implies that farmers today consider and continue to seek for quality planting
materials and excellent varieties that can give them better income and profit.
58
58
Table 13. Perceived degree of effect of the FFS on the income - profit, and application of IPM technologies
PERCEIVED DEGREE OF EFFECT OF THE FFS
F-
PARAMETERS
MEAN
DE
SIG
VALUE
Abra
Apayao Benguet
Ifugao
Kalinga
Mt.
Prov.
Income and profit
2.14
2.17
2.11
2.50
2.75
2.56
2.37
MS
3.26**
0.013
Adoption of IPM
2.14
2.17
2.11
2.40
2.75
2.56
2.36
MS
3.21**
0.014
** - significant
ns – not significant
Legend:
1.0 - 1.69 = weak
1.7 - 2.39 = moderately strong
2.4 - 3.00 = very strong
59
Relationship Between Socio-Economic Factors of
Trainers and Extent of FFS – IPM Features
and Characteristics Implementation
This section presents the socio-economic factors of trainers along sex,
experiences on FFS and the short courses attended in relation to FFS-IPM features
and characteristics implementation with respect to adaptability, appropriateness
and relevance.
A significant relationship between the sex and adaptability of the features
and characteristics FFS - IPM exists (Table 14). In Table 2, there are 31 females
and 22 male respondents. The male respondents had lower perceived adaptability
of the features and characteristics of FFS – IPM than females. The hypothesis
therefore is rejected. This result disagrees with the findings of Domanog (2007)
that gender, civil status and educational attainment do not affect the level of job
performance of teachers.
Significant negative relationships exist between the trainers attendance in
Season Long Training FFS – IPM training on vegetables and rice and the
appropriateness of the features and characteristics of FFS – IPM. The more
attendance in season long training FFS – IPM on vegetables and rice, the lesser
appropriate are the features and characteristics of the FFS – IPM. The more
attendance to season long training in vegetables, the less relevant are the features
and characteristics of the FFS – IPM.
60
Table 14. Relationship between socio-economic factors and extent of FFS – IPM
features and characteristics implementation
EXTENT OF FFS -IPM FEATURES
AND CHARACTERISTICS
SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS
IMPLEMENTATION
Adaptability
Appropria-
Relevance
teness
Socio-Economic
Sex
-0.32*
-0.25
-0.08
Age
-0.04
-0.09
-0.11
Educational Attainment
-0.14
-0.11
-0.10
Experiences on FFS
a. Season Long FFS – IPM
Training Attended:
Vegetable
-0.09
-0.35**
-0.28*
Rice
-0.05
-0.35**
-0.24
Corn
-0.09
-0.21
-0.15
b. Short Courses Attended:
Crash/Refresher Courses
-0.17
-0.02
-0.05
Other Related Training
-0.01
-0.15
0.19
Related Consultation/
-0.21
-0.31*
-0.20
Workshops
r
= ±0 2
. 7 r
= 0
± .35
0
. 5
0
. 1
** - highly significant
There exist significant relationship between the FFS – IPM related
consultation workshops attended and the appropriateness of the features and
characteristics of FFS – IPM. The more attendance of trainers in consultation
workshops, the lesser is the perceived appropriateness of the features and
characteristics of FFS – IPM.
61
Even though, the trainers attended more FFS – IPM season long training
on vegetables and rice and related consultation workshops, trainers still perceived
that the features and characteristics of FFS - IPM were not appropriate and
relevant. These results are opposite of what may normally be expected. It appears
that the agriculture technicians may have reached a stage of being bored with
more of the same problems to solve, and with the same solutions addressing the
complexities of implementing FFS. This includes the appropriate support from the
local executives; and the availability of technical information and support needed
to address what the farmers need. FFS is attractive where there is always new
information, and new lesson to be learned and shared. Many of the trainers
claimed that the plans they made after training workshops were not implemented
because they did not have enough support from their executives.
The relationship between training and quality management established by
Gee and Nystrom thus applies here. Gee and Nystrom (1999) as cited by Cooney
et al. (2002) found that different levels of training are strategically related to
different levels of quality management practices. Limited and one-off training
program were associated with quality by inspection whilst comprehensive training
was associated with the adoption of full total quality management program.
Furthermore, Cooney et al. (2002) found that employee training is seemingly
more effective, when it is closely combined with comprehensive quality
management practices. The close alignment of the training with the development
62
of skills and competencies that are strategically important to the business seems to
enhance the value of the training dollar. The results may indicate that the
workshops attended lack quality management or the trainer may also lack quality
management in the implementation of FFS – IPM training.
The finding supports the finding of Gumpeng (2008) that younger age,
male, and with more number of seminars, trainings or workshops attended
perceived higher availability of computer-based technologies.
Reasons of Farmers in Attending
the FFS Regular Sessions
The reasons why the farmers attended the FFS/IPM program were
determined (Table 15). A significant difference in the responses of farmers on
why they attended regular FFS sessions is indicated by the computed Q - value.
The primary reason of farmers attending the FFS was due to their expectations to
learn new agricultural technologies from the training with 95.3%. This implies
that there is a need for knowledge, and for new or advanced technology, to
continually improve their lives. The farmers are experienced agriculturists.
Nevertheless, they were not contented with doing “more of the same” things.
An indication that the trainers effectively conducted their ground work
prior to the conduct of the FFS is the second reason of farmers in attending the
program. Majority of the farmers (58.7%) were convinced with the objectives of
the training, and that something worthy and valuable will result from the training.
63
Table 15. Reasons of farmer in attending the FFS regular sessions
FREQUEN-
REASONS
PERCENT
RANK
CY
1. Cannot refuse trainers who invited
13
8.7
7
them to join, They know her/him
well, and he/she is a friend
2. Influenced by neighbors who are
37
24.7
4.5
attending the training
3. Persuaded by the presence of
21
14.0
6
friends in the training
4. Cannot refuse the local
10
6.7
8
officials/leaders who invited them
to attend
5. Expected to learn new things from
144
96.0
1
the training
6. Expected to get support or material
68
45.3
3
things after the training
7. Convinced with the objectives of
88
58.7
2
the training
8. An inspiration to others
37
24.7
4.5
Qc = 455.77**
Sig. = 0.000
In most training activities, especially those conducted by private
agricultural companies, “give always” and “give aways” are used to attract
farmers to attend. And a good number (45.3%) of farmers who attended the FFS
training expected the same. Farmers expected to also get material support such as
64
T-shirts, caps, samples, etc. after the training program. These are small things, but
they somehow show a sense of goodwill and camaraderie with the farmers.
Motivations/Goals of Farmers in Applying the
Knowledge and Skills Gained from FFS
To gauge the degree of IPM technology adaptation from FFS, and the
motivations farmers have in applying the knowledge and skills they gained from
FFS training in their farming activities are presented in Table 16. The table shows
that there is a significant difference among the responses of farmers hence, the
null hypothesis is rejected. This implies that the motivations of farmers in
applying what they learned from the FFS training and research significantly vary
from each other.
While the trainers were firstly motivated to train farmers to produce “safer
food,” the most common motivation of farmers was the possibility for higher
income and profit when practicing IPM (83.3%). Trainers can afford to cite
“intangible” benefits such as “safe food” because they are consumers of farmers’
produce. The farmers, on the other hand, are more practical and prefer economic
and tangible benefits that can accrue to them. For farmers, the bottom line is still
income and profit.
65
Table 16. Motivations/goals of farmers in applying the knowledge and skills
gained from FFS
MOTIVATIONS/GOALS
FEQUENCY PERCENT RANK
1. Reduced pesticide cost and usage
103
68.7
3
2. Reduced fertilizer cost and usage
100
66.7
4
3. Higher income and profit
125
83.3
1
4. Higher yield
98
65.3
5
5. Safer food produced
106
70.7
2
6. Restoration and preservation of
70
46.7
6.5
beneficial organisms
7. Cleaner environment
70
46.7
6.5
Qc = 77.624**
Sig. = 0.000
This result corroborates the findings of Claveria et al. (2009) that the FFS
graduates of sweetpotato production in Balutu, Concepcion, Tarlac were
motivated to sustain the application of IPM techniques they learned from the FFS
training. The application of the learning ensured their high incomes and profits.
As a result of the FFS-IPM training, the farmer graduates served as watchdogs to
their own group in applying their lessons. This is to avoid the spread of the virus
disease which greatly reduces expected yields, income and profit. The FFS
graduates were also motivated to form a cooperative to provide Concepcion
farmers with clean, virus-free planting materials and to continuously apply what
66
was learned in the FFS in order to maintain a sustainable source and supply of
virus-free sweet potato planting materials. The virus-free cuttings commanded a
higher price than the ordinary planting materials.
The second reason why farmers practice lessons learned in IPM is the
production of safer food (70.7%). This shows that after income and profit, farmers
are also concerned with the quality of their produce, that it be safer to eat.
Farmers also have developed social consciousness. Wanawan (2005) found out
that organic producers in Benguet were one in saying that they shifted to organic
farming not only for reduced cash inputs, better profit, there family’s health but
also as their social responsibility.
In line with producing safer food, farmers also opted for reduced pesticide
cost and usage (68.7%), and for reduced fertilizer cost and usage (66.7%). These
identified needs and wants should be part of scaled-up versions of the FFS on
IPM in the future. Additional reasons cited by farmers in practicing lessons
learned from FFS-IPM were more intangibles such as “higher yield” with 65.3%,
and lastly the “restoration and preservation of beneficial organisms”, and “cleaner
environment” with 46.7%.
The findings are in agreement with what Pontius et al. (2002) stated that
in Indonesia, some farmers are primarily motivated by the reduced costs and
reduced production risk obtained through application of ecological principles to
crop management. Some are intellectually stimulated by the subject matter and
67
excited by the experience of designing and carrying out their own experiments.
For others, the main attraction is group interaction, discussions and debates that
are important in every FFS. The most striking confirmation of this enthusiasm has
been the spontaneous appearance of farmer-to-farmer FFSs, in which field school
graduates begin to organize season-long FFSs for other local farmers.
Degree of Application of Knowledge and
Skills Gained During the FFS
This section presents the extent of application of knowledge and skills
learned during the FFS that focused on: the conduct of regular field monitoring,
considering pesticide as the last resort to control pests, the use of proper amount
of fertilizers at the right time, practicing crop sanitation at all times, checking for
beneficial and harmful organisms in the farm regularly, assessing crop damages
regularly, determining income, profit and yield increases, conducting own
researches, and maintaining farm recording.
Table 17 shows that almost all the knowledge and skills gained from the
FFS-IPM identified in the study differ significantly among the farmers of CAR
except on farm recording that is found not significant. Farmers first applied the
knowledge and skills they gained from the FFS then later they adopted these to
their routine farming activities. The numerical values ranging from 1.93 to 2.01
show a moderate application of the knowledge and skills gained from the FFS –
IPM training and research activities.
68
68
Table 17. Degree of application of knowledge and skills gained from the FFS
DEGREE OF APPLICATION
F-
KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS
Mt.
DE
SIG
Abra
Apayao
Benguet
Ifugao
Kalinga
MEAN
VALUE
Prov
1.
Conduct regular field
monitoring
1.75
2.40
1.87
1.77
2.46
1.55
1.99
M
14.40**
0.000
2.
Consider pesticide as the
1.25
2.05
1.74
1.31
2.57
1.82
1.83
M
27.49**
0.000
last resort to control pests
3.
Use proper amount of
1.62
2.15
1.74
1.65
2.57
1.73
1.99
M
16.49**
0.000
fertilizers at the right time
4.
Practice crop sanitation all
1.62
2.20
1.74
1.62
2.40
1.91
1.94
M
12.70**
0.000
the time
5.
Check presence of
1.96
2.15
1.78
1.65
2.23
1.59
1.91
M
7.11**
0.000
beneficial organisms
regularly
6.
Check regularly presence
2.00
2.20
1.87
1.58
2.31
1.55
1.94
M
10.32**
0.000
of harmful organisms
7.
Assess regularly crop
1.87
2.15
1.91
1.88
2.40
1.68
2.01
M
7.56**
0.000
damages
8.
Compute income/profit,
1.54
2.15
1.70
1.65
2.20
1.68
1.84
M
6.64**
0.001
and yield increases
9.
Conduct own researches
1.62
1.90
1.57
1.27
1.91
1.45
1.63
M
4.17ns
0.086
10. Do farm recording
1.79
2.05
1.65
1.62
1.75
1.55
1.72
M
1.97**
0.001
Mean
1.72
2.14
1.73
1.60
2.28
1.65
1.90
M
** - significant
ns – not significant
Legend: 1.0 - 1.69 = weak 1.7 - 2.39 = moderate
2.4 - 3.00 = high
69
Results also show that Kalinga farmers had high application of their
knowledge and skills particularly on the aspects of regular conduct of AESA;
considering pesticide as the last resort to pest control; use of the right amount of
fertilizer; practice of field sanitation; and regularly assessing crop damages. The
rest of the identified learning aspects were moderately adopted. This finding is
consistent with the findings in Table 13 where trainers had highly adopted the
features and characteristics of FFS.
More than 50% of the learning aspects from the FFS were noted as poorly
applied by farmers in Abra, Ifugao and Mt. Province while the other aspects were
moderately applied. The farmers from Apayao had a moderate application of their
learning from the FFS, except for the conduct of agro-ecosystems analysis which
is rated as highly applied. In Benguet, the conduct of research after the training
was poorly applied while all the other items were moderately applied.
The knowledge and skills gained from the FFS-IPM, particularly in the
Agro-ecosystem analysis provided farmers with a more systematic manner of
monitoring their fields regularly. Their regular assessment and interpretation of
the observations has apparently become a habit. Farmer graduates now do regular
assessment of crop damages; regular field monitoring; and are more conscious
with the proper use of pesticides and the amount of fertilizers, applied at the right
time. One farmer said during the interview:
70
“Tatta a ket, nadaras ti panagpasyar met idiay talon ta
kitaen no anya ti problema. No idi a ket, no nalpas to raep ket
mapan lang no tiempo ti panag-spray ken panag-abono”.
(“Now, I visit the field very often to see the problems.
Before, after planting is finished, i only go to the field when i
spray and apply fertilizer”).
This result is in support to the statement of Van den Berg (2004) that FFS
graduates gained complex knowledge on agro-ecosystem management, retained
over five years and knowledge was shared with non-FFS, however it did not
readily diffuse.
Although considered mundane farm activities, the practice of crop
sanitation at all times to reduce insect pest incidence and disease inocula, is now
better appreciated. With this practice, a similar activity is to regularly check the
presence of harmful organisms in the farm. This monitoring led to the reduction
of pesticide use to 54.97% (Table 6).
Overall, the level of application of knowledge and skills learned is
moderate. This result indicates that the farmers have yet to reach a level of
adjustments in the application of IPM technologies.
Other constraints in the low adoption of IPM identified by Ali (1997) are
the lack of full and continuous support from the local government units, lack of
awareness and appreciation of IPM products, lack of specific market outlet for
IPM products, and insufficient training. Tovignan and Nuppenau (2004) found
that the reasons for non adopters are low yields, and lack of information while
71
adopters reasons are based on desire for stable income, lack of transparency in the
conventional sector and health. Domoguen (2008), pointed that aside from
strengthening the implementation of FFS, the local market should put a premium
on products that are healthier to eat to encourage the sustenance of farmers to
practice IPM and better yet, to convert to organic farming.
Degree of Changes Made and Suggestions in the
FFS - IPM Features and Characteristics
This section focused on the changes made on the 13 major features and
characteristics of FFS namely: methodology; duration; number of participants;
time of day; number of hours; subject matter; sequence of activities; research
theme; research design; field monitoring; conduct of insect/disease zoos; conduct
of field days and graduation; and determining incomes and profits. It also
considered the suggestions/modifications with regards to features and
characteristics of FFS-IPM.
Degree of Changes Made in the FFS-IPM
Features and Characteristics
Significant differences among the provinces were observed in the time of
day, number of hours, subject matter or topic, research design, conduct of AESA,
and conduct of field day and graduation (Table 18). It was noted that five items of
73
72
Table 18. Degree of changes made in the FFS features and characteristics
FEATURES AND
DEGREE OF CHANGES MADE
F-
MEAN
DE
SIG
CHARACTERISTICS
Abra
Apayao
Benguet
Ifugao
Kalinga
Mt. Prov.
VALUE
1.
Methodology
1.57
1.50
1.44
1.40
1.08
1.33
1.39
NC
1.26
0.299
2.
Duration
1.29
1.33
1.44
1.50
1.08
1.67
1.39
NC
1.86
0.121
3.
Number of
1.43
1.33
1.44
1.30
1.25
1.67
1.40
NC
0.86
0.517
participants
4.
Time of day
1.29
1.17
1.78
1.40
1.33
1.78
1.46
NC
2.77*
0.028
5.
Number of hours
1.29
1.17
1.78
1.80
1.33
1.89
1.54
M
3.34*
0.012
6.
Subject matter/focus
1.29
1.33
1.56
1.50
1.17
1.89
1.46
M
3.46*
0.010
topic
7.
Sequence of
1.29
1.17
1.44
1.70
1.25
1.67
1.42
NC
1.10
0.373
activities
8.
Research theme:
1.43
1.33
1.89
1.70
1.42
1.78
1.59
M
1.74
0.144
IPM
9.
Research design
1.57
1.17
1.67
1.70
1.25
1.78
1.52
M
2.48*
0.045
10. Field monitoring
1.43
1.17
1.44
1.60
1.00
1.44
1.35
NC
2.50*
0.044
(AESA)
11. Conduct
1.71
1.17
1.67
1.60
1.58
1.67
1.57
M
0.84
0.494
insect/disease zoos
12. Conduct of field
1.43
1.43
1.56
1.20
1.00
1.33
1.33
NC
2.84*
0.026
day/ and graduation
13. Research data
1.14
1.14
1.00
1.10
1.00
1.22
1.10
NC
1.09
0.376
analysis
Mean
1.40
1.26
1.55
1.50
1.21
1.62
1.42
DE
NC
NC
M
M
NC
M
NC
** - significant
ns – not significant
Legend: 1:00 – 1.49 = No change (NC)
1.50 – 2.00 = Modified (M)
73
the features and characteristics namely: number of hours; subject matter or topic;
research theme; research design; and conduct insect/disease zoos were modified
which were done in Benguet, Ifugao, and Mt. Province.
The modifications made were necessary to address all necessary topics
covered under each particular commodity or topic. These were attributed to the
shifting of FFS from IPM of vegetable to organic farming; to fruits trees; to agro-
forestry; to livestock; to child nutrition; to rice or corn; and from rice to
vegetables; to corn or other commodities. All these required flexibilities to
address specific commodities.
The conduct of insect/disease zoo, though not significant is modified by
all the provinces. This implies that the conduct of insect/disease zoos is somehow
difficult to handle by farmers. Few indicated they omitted this part during the
conduct of FFS. Insect/disease zoos require some degree of delicate handling, and
need appropriate materials to be successful. The preparation of materials and the
conduct of insect/disease zoo are painstaking and meticulous.
Suggested Modifications in the FFS-IPM
Features and Characteristics
There are relatively few responses on the suggested modifications with
regard to the features and characteristics of FFS (Table 19). However, their
suggestions were considered important for any improvement of the program.
74
Table19. Issues and suggested modifications in the FFS features and
characteristics
ISSUES AND SUGGESTED
FREQUEN-
MODIFICATIONS IN THE FFS FEATURES
PERCENT
CY
AND CHARACTERISTICS
1. Methodology
- Discussion too long that this may cause
annoyance resulting to dwindling
attendance
- Strengthen the participatory part of FFS.
10
18.5
Participants should be more involved in
the planning process and actual conduct
of the study
- Adopt Palaycheck system
- Consider the use of charts, film showing
2. Duration
- For vegetables, at least 3 cropping,
every after two weeks sessions
9
16.7
- For organic based FFS for 2 – 3
cropping season, twice meetings in a
month
- Farmers classes for straight 5 days
3. Number of participants
5
9.3
- Reduced participants 15-25 (only
interested)
4. Time of day
2
3.7
- Consider scheduling on weekend to
accommodate more farmers
5. Number of hours
- Reduced number of hours to 2 -3 hours
6
11.1
- Lengthen time if necessary
75
Table19. continued…
ISSUES AND SUGGESTED
FREQUEN-
MODIFICATIONS IN THE FFS FEATURES
PERCENT
CY
AND CHARACTERISTICS
6. Subject matter/focus topic
- Emphasize more on profit and income
- In strawberry, cycles of planting
material production- the critical
production factor should be emphasized
- Include marketing
- Expand to ICM
- More on soil fertility, nutrient
management
10
18.5
- Note: In fertilizer computation: it’s the
job of the technician, not many farmers
are able to do it even with STK results
- Insect, pest and diseases
- Skills development in monitoring leads
to better mgt techniques
- Emphasize on use of cultural practices:
planting distance, use of biological
control agents available
- Organic farming
1
1.9
7. Sequence of activities
2
3.7
8. Research theme
9. Research design
- Include variety trials , INM trials
8
14.8
- Improve skill in data collection and
analysis
10. Field monitoring (AESA)
- Drawing every time is not necessary,
farmers already know the pests.
Instead concentrate on its management,
and emphasize on knowing the signs and
proper timing of management and
importance of monitoring, early
76
Table19. continued…
ISSUES AND SUGGESTED
FREQUEN-
MODIFICATIONS IN THE FFS FEATURES
PERCENT
CY
AND CHARACTERISTICS
detection of possible problems will lead
to IPM.
- Drawing may discourage those who are
not skilled and loose interest in
participating
6
11.11
- Do question and answer in the field
rather than drawing and presentation of
groups drawings
- Optional AESA – reporting of
observations and remove drawing but
more of insect/disease identification
11. Conduct of insect/disease zoos
8
14.8
- Minimize or reduce insect/disease zoos
- b. Omit the insect/disease zoo
3
5.6
12. Conduct of field day/and graduation
13. Calculation of incomes and profits
5
9.3
Qc = 27.165**
Sig. = 0.000
Statistical analysis shows that the varied responses are significantly
different from each other as shown in Cochran’s Q-test at 27.165.
The highest percentage of proposed modifications is in the methodology
and the subject matter of the training with 10 (18.5%) respondents each. The
identified methodology suggested improving the facilitating skills of trainers to be
able to sustain interest during sessions and thus sustaining high attendance.
77
PalayCheck system was suggested as an upscaling FFS activity for rice systems,
including the use of charts and film showing.
On the subject matter, majority of the topics are of the same subjects in the
previous curriculum. Additional topics included marketing which emphasized
income and profit; and organic farming. An important concern raised is the
transfer of some skills that may not be necessary for farmers, such as the use of a
Soil Test Kit (STK). It was mentioned that majority of the farmers may not be
able to use this tool in their lives. Thus, this level of technology may be more
appropriate for technicians, while the farmers are the end users of results of the
STK analysis made by the technicians.
The third area with highest respondents (9) is the duration of the FFS
training. The suggestions vary. Some hope to reach their goal of proving the
outcome of IPM and organic farming; some suggest three cropping seasons, but
with longer interval of sessions like every after two weeks, and having FFS for
straight five days.
As regards research design, which is normally comparative studies
between IPM practices versus the conventional farmers’ crop protection practices,
eight(8) respondents suggested more researches in integrated nutrient
management and also variety trials. There had been arguments about making the
research simple with the farmers. However, simplicity at the farmers’ level is
combining all available management practices aimed to increase yield. At the end
78
of the training-research, it was noted that many factors might have affected the
results. More often, fertilizer trials were combined with many other techniques in
pest management, hence, it would be more appropriate to call it integrated crop
management.
Another proposal from eight(8) respondents (14.8%) was to omit or
reduce the conduct of insect-disease zoos to conform to the poor adaptability
results (Table 8), and thus, was modified and omitted during the FFS
implementation (Table 15). This implies that the trainers have difficulties in
dealing with the science of IPM not due to the lack of appreciation and
understanding. On the other hand, it must be required, although in a more
systematic manner. Insect and disease zoos are important tools to show and
illustrate “cause and effect” of pests, and even of beneficial organisms. Trainer
and farmer “friendly” insect and disease zoos should be devised for all the crops
to encourage the use of the approach.
In field monitoring, using the Agro-ecosystem analysis, it was suggested
that emphasis should be the skill to identify or detect early signs and symptoms of
crop production problems. This will help the farmers practice IPM. Trainers felt
that the drawing in AESA may not be necessary anymore. Instead, they proposed
that “question and answer” be conducted in the field while actively going through
their observations. The agro-ecosystem analysis is the centerpiece of the FFS in
79
which decision making evolves. Without observations in the field, there is no base
information for discussions.
Other proposals were to reduce the number of participants per FFS from
25-30 to 15 – 20, and to select those that are truly interested and the possibility of
reducing the number of hours to two to three hours per session.
Suggested Topics for Future FFS
On topics for consideration in case the FFS will be conducted again, the
following were suggested: Integrated Pest Management, Integrated Soil Fertility
Management, Organic Farming, Food Processing, Marketing, Good Agricultural
Practices, and Farm Enterprise.
Statistical analysis shows in Table 20 that there is significant difference
among responses at 74.275. Organic farming was chosen as the most preferred
topic (66.7%) followed by Integrated Soil Fertility Management (58.7%) and
Integrated Pest Management (52%). The results indicate that the farmers realized
they needed the know how to improve soil fertility. Some farmers related during
the interview that no matter how they managed pest problems if the soil is poor,
they can not achieve proper pest management especially for diseases. The crop
yield still suffers, thus the need for options to improve soil fertility.
This observation is in fact the foundation of organic farming. Organic
farming relies primarily on proper crop nutrition. This is the commonly observed
phenomenon whereby a plant that is provided with the proper nutrition from
80
Table 20. Suggested topics in the future FFS
TOPIC
FREQUENCY
PERCENT
1. Integrated Pest Management
78
52
2. Integrated Soil Fertility Management
88
58.7
3. Organic Farming
100
66.7
4. Food Processing
35
23.3
5. Marketing
61
40.7
6. Good Agricultural Practices
59
39.3
7. Farm Enterprise
67
44.7
Qc = 74.275*
Sig. - 0.000
natural sources, will be healthy and highly productive even without the use of
synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. A naturally healthy plant can better withstand
and counter the effects of insect pests and diseases. As the Soil Association
believes that “organic farming is the only way that high quality food production
can go hand in hand with caring for our health, the countryside, and its wildlife”
(http://www.sheepdrove.com/203.htm).
The least topic chosen by the respondents was food processing (23.3%).
This implies that generally farmers do not go for processing their produce instead
they produce for the processing institutions.
81
Summary
The purpose of the study was to gather information on the implementation
of Farmer Field School and the adoption of the IPM technologies. Specifically,
the study determined: 1) the relationship between motivational factors and the
extent of the adaptability, appropriateness, and relevance on the features and
characteristics of FFS-IPM and reasons in the conduct of FFS-IPM; 2) the extent
of the adaptability, appropriateness, and relevance on the features and
characteristics of FFS-IPM; 3) the relationship between the socio-economic
factors and the extent of the adaptability, appropriateness, and relevance of the
features and characteristics of FFS-IPM; 4) the degree of application of IPM
technologies; and 5) identified suggestions for the improvement of the FFS
program.
Fifty three active trainers and 150 farmer graduates were interviewed in 22
selected municipalities in all the provinces of CAR, namely: Abra, Apayao,
Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga , and Mt. Province.
The study used a semi-structured survey questionnaire to collect data. The
data base on FFS implementation from the Regional IPM Coordinating unit of
DA – RFU, CAR served as source of data for the identification of respondents.
Focused group discussions and triangulation was employed. The data were
statistically analyzed using frequency, mean, percentages, analysis of variance,
82
Cochran Q-test with the SPSS program and point biserial for correlations.
Comparisons were made at 0.05 level of significance.
The following are the salient findings of the study:
1.a) Most of the trainer respondents were in the middle ages (41 – 55);
more females than male; 81% college graduates and 19 with masters degree in
nine different disciplines; 74% graduated from TOT, 21% from TOS, and 6%
from crush courses in vegetables, rice and corn; implemented an average of seven
FFS in an average of three years; 45% attended five or more FFS-IPM related
training courses and workshops, 30% attended less than 5 but 25% never attended
other FFS related training courses.
1.b) Majority of the farmers were in the ages 41 - 55, 31% reached
college, 52%finished high school, and 17 in high school; had average savings of
54.97% from cost of pesticide, 51.90% from fertilizer inputs, 43.20% from cost of
labor; 16.19% increase in production, 16.68% in income, and 15.56% in profit.
2. a) The lead motivation for trainers in implementing FFS-IPM was their
concern for health (production of safe food), followed by the efforts to restore and
preserve beneficial organisms, reduce chemical inputs, enhance biodiversity, and
increase income and profit of farmers. In addition, trainers were motivated
because they have opportunities for regular encounters with farmers in the
barangays with support from their heads of offices.
83
2.b) Reasons for implementing the FFS were to learn and share their
knowledge and skills with farmers, and train farmers in IPM by research. Some
trainers implemented FFS to respond to office mandate and few admittedly are
challenged to test their ability as trainers of IPM.
2.c) Three motivational factors significantly influenced the adaptability,
appropriateness and relevance of the features and characteristics of FFS – IPM
namely: higher income and profit of farmers, safer food production, and the
enhancement of biodiversity. The more motivated the trainer to effect higher
income and profit by the farmers, the lesser was their adaptability of the FFS –
IPM features and characteristics; the more motivated the trainer to effect the
enhancement of biodiversity, the higher was their adaptability; and the more
motivated the trainers to effect the production of safe food by the farmers, the
higher the perceived relevance are the features and characteristics of FFS – IPM.
3.a) The overall degree of adaptability of the features and characteristics
was moderate; the degree of appropriateness and relevance were both high.
3.b) Number of participants, time of the day, number of hours, and the
conduct of insect/disease zoos were consistently rated moderate along
adaptability, appropriateness and relevance.
3.c) High degree of adaptability was noted from the trainers of Benguet,
Ifugao and Kalinga, moderate from Abra, Apayao and Mt. Province. High level of
appropriateness was found from trainers in Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga and Mt.
84
Province; moderate from Abra and Apayao; and high degree of relevance from
Apayao, Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga and moderate from Abra and Mt. Province.
3.d) The effects of FFS on the income and profit as well as the adoption of
IPM technologies were moderate.
4.a) Gender, season long training in FFS – IPM on vegetables and rice and
attendance to FFS –IPM related consultation workshops had negative significant
relationships with the adaptability, appropriateness and relevance of the features
and characteristics of FFS – IPM. The male respondents perceived a lower
adaptability of the features and characteristics of FFS – IPM than the females.
More attendance in season long training in FFS – IPM on vegetables and rice, the
lesser appropriate are the features and characteristics of the FFS – IPM. More
attendance in season long training in vegetables, relevance was less perceived;
More attendance of trainers in consultation workshops, the lesser was
appropriateness perceived.
4.b) Farmers attended regular FFS sessions basically 1) to learn new
things as they were convinced with the objectives of the program; and 2) farmers
expected to get support or material things after the training. Other reasons
included the influence of neighbors attending the training and they became
inspiration to others.
85
4.c) Major motivation in applying knowledge and skills gained were
higher income and profit, safer food, reduced cost of pesticides and reduced cost
of fertilizers.
4.d) Degree of knowledge and skills applied was moderate. Provinces
differ significantly with Abra, Apayao, Benguet, and Kalinga had moderate level
of application of the knowledge and skills while weak application of knowledge
and skills was noted in Ifugao and Mt. Province.
5.a) Significant differences existed among the provinces in the degree of
change along time of day, number of hours, subject matter, research design, and
conduct of insect/disease zoo. Number of hours, subject matter, research theme,
and field monitoring were modified.
5.b) Suggestions for modifications were on methodology, coverage of
subject matter, duration, conduct of insect/disease zoo, research design, conduct
of AESA and the number of hours. Topics suggested for any upcoming FFS
related training activities were organic farming, soil fertility management, and
integrated pest management.
86
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
Based on the results and findings, the following conclusions and
implications are drawn:
1. Middle age may be considered as a right age for trainers to conduct
FFS, workshops which is coupled with high educational qualifications. On the
other hand, training qualifications vary in terms of the number of trainings taken,
number of crash courses attended to no training at all related to FFS-IPM. Most
farmer respondents are middle aged and are economically capable to apply IPM
program.
2.a) The trainers’ motivation for the implementation of the program is
based on the fundamental tenets of self-preservation and concern for the
environment hence the trainers’ main reason to conduct FFS is to share
knowledge and skills to the farmers.
2.b) There are motivational factors that influence adaptability,
appropriateness and relevance of the features and characteristics of FFS-IPM;
others do not.
3. The degree of adaptability, appropriateness, and relevance of the
features and characteristics in the implementation of the program ranges from
moderate to high.
87
4. Socio-economic factors as used in the study reflect the trainers’ need
for more relevant, appropriate and adaptable aspects of the program to address the
needs of the changing times. The farmers’ level of application of knowledge and
skills gained from FFS – IPM varies from moderate to low.
5. While there are no changes made in the features and characteristics of
FFS – IPM, suggestions for modifications emphasizes aspects where trainers
consider as important.
Recommendations
Based on the findings and conclusions, the following are recommended:
1. There is a need for new a breed of younger FFS as core trainers. The
training programs should be selective to consider age, field of specialization that
is close to the main training content and those who have potential skill and
competencies for development.
2. The motivating factors of trainers in implementing the FFS –IPM
program does not only benefit trainers and farmer graduates but for the entire
consuming public. It is therefore recommended that the FFS be placed in a
broader rural development perspective because benefits also accrue to sectors
such as the public health, environmental protection, economy and education.
Resources from the above sectors can be pooled to support safe food production
by the local farmers not only in terms of manpower resources but funding. DA
88
should revive and spearhead or establish a strong coordinating body among
agencies concerned to corner funds from agencies, not only from DA and LGUs
to support safe food production.
3. Though the program supposes to be LGU led, the DA is still seen as the
initiator of the program including full fund source. Thus, DA should institute a
strong monitoring and evaluation scheme not only counting the number of FFS
conducted and number of farmers trained but the impact of the FFS – IPM
through the local executives. The DA should look at the FFS as a developmental
program, not as stand alone, thus DA should prioritize graduates of FFS as
partners in their various programs and projects, and as implementers of the
agriculture interventions initiated from the agriculture sector. This way,
confusions by the agriculture technicians and the farmers about programs and
projects implemented by the DA is corrected.
4. All the features and characteristics contribute to the uniqueness,
dynamism, and strategic effectiveness of FFS-IPM to efficiently promote the
adoption of technologies. Five items namely, duration, number of participants,
time of day, number of hours, and conduct of insect/disease zoos have to be re-
examined to conform with norms that make a quality training program cost
effective and efficiency. The cause of the differences between moderate and high
degree of implementation among the provinces should also be re-examined and
evaluated for future recommendations. Follow-up workshops are needed to
89
evaluate the adaptability, relevance and appropriateness of insect/disease zoos and
other items in the features and characteristics of FFS to be able to identify the
weaknesses and strengths affecting the efficiency of FFS/IPM implementation.
The DA (or any institution conducting related training) should be conscientious in
accepting training, workshop participants. Training should only be undertaken
where it is strategically important to do so and where the training effort can have
maximum effect.
5. To sustain the attendance of farmers in regular sessions, clarity on the
objectives and goals of the program is very important to be understood during the
ground working activities. Trainers must always have new relevant information
every session to sustain and drum beat the participation and interest of farmers.
6. It is recommended that an exit plan should be developed with graduates
is recommended. In similar manner, the LGUs should develop long term follow
up mechanism to keep tract agricultural production management practices and
activities of farmers. Farmer participants can now pay acceptable training cost for
better appreciation of learning.
7. The specific suggestions and comments concerning the implementation
of FFS-IPM with regards the features and characteristics be evaluated further for
their usefulness in the program.
LITERATURE CITED
ALI, I. D., 1997. The Effectiveness of Farmers’ Field School as a Training
Strategy for Sustainable Adoption of Integrated Pest Management by
Cordillera Vegetable Farmers. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
ANON.
The
Principles
of
Organic
Farming.
http://www.sheepdrove.com/203.htm. Accessed on August 26, 2009.
ANON, 1994. KASAKALIKASAN, The Philippine National IPM Program.
Printed by the National Agribusiness Corporation.
ANON. 2009. Leadership Theories on Motivation and Satisfaction.
http://www.essay-911.com/samples/Theories.htm. Accessed on August
26, 2009.
ATI-DA, CAR, 2008. Agricultural Workers Profile of the Cordillera
Administrative Region.
ARCHER, D., 1997. The REFLECT Process at an International Level.
Participation, Literacy and Empowerment. PLA Notes. IIED. Vol. 32. Pp.
31- 39.
BINAMIRA, J., 2001. Country Report submitted at the meeting of the
Programme Advisory Committee, November 2001. Community Integrated
Pest Management.
BROTO, A. S., 2008. Statistics Made Simple. Second Edition. National Book
Store. P. 12.
CHENG, C. L. and K.V. BERSAMIRA, 1997. Pesticides: Its Hazardous Effects
on the Benguet Farmers and the Environment. Unique Printing Press,
Baguio City. Philippines. P.5.
CLAVERIA, C., L. PALENGLENG, and A. PEREY, 2009. Technology
Assessment of Sweetpotato Clean Planting Material Production in Balutu,
Conception, Tarlac. Research Paper in Technology Assessment Class
2008. Unpublished
91
COONEY, R., M. TERZIOVSKI and D. SAMSON., 2002. Employee Training,
Quality Management and the Performance of Australian and New Zealand
Manufacturers. Working Paper. Monash University. New Zealand.
COTTINGHAM, S., 1998. How can REFLECT be used widely without diluting
the Participatory Nature of the Process. Participation, Literacy and
Empowerment. PLA Notes. IIED. Vol. 32. Pp. 43-46.
DA-RFU, CAR, 2008. Status Report. KASAKALIKASAN, The Regional IPM
Program.
DOMANOG, L. E., 2007. Job Satisfaction and Work Value of Teachers in the
Vicariate Schools of Mt. Province. Unpublished Master’sThesis, Benguet
State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
DOMOGUEN, R. L., 2008. Strengthening the Farmer Field School. Agriculture
Magazine. Feb. 2008.
DRIESCHE, R. V. & T. S. BELLONES, 1996. Biological Control. New York. An
International Thompson Publishing Company. Pp. 76 – 81.
Employer-Employee.com (2001), as cited by Alupias, E. 2002. Capacity
Development of the Researchers of Benguet State University.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Benguet State University, La Trinidad,
Benguet.
GALLAGHER, K. D., A. R. BRAUN and D. DUVESKOG. 2009. Demystifying
Farmer Field School Concepts. Accessed on July 11, 2009. Unpublished.
GEE and NYSTROM (1999) as cited by Cooney, R., M. Terziovski & D. Samson
(2002). Employee Training, Quality Management and the Performance of
Australian and New Zealand Manufacturers. Working Paper. Monash
University. New Zealand.
Global FFSNet. 2008.
GUMPENG, J. T., 2007. Computer-Based Technologies and the Science
Teachersin the Catholic Elementary Schools in Baguio City. Unpublished
Master’s Thesis, Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
IIBC, 1996. TA Final Report. Integrated Pest Management for Highland
Vegetables. Volume 1.
92
IIBC, 1996. Farmer Field School Documentary. Integrated Pest Management for
Highland Vegetables. Volume 6.
LEGASPI, A. G., 1995. Adoption of Rice Production Technologies in
Pangasinan: An Assessment. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Benguet
State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
MEDINA, J. R. and CALLO, J. P. Jr., 1997. Empowering Farmers: The
Philippine National Integrated Pest Management Program. SEAMEO
Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture
(SEARCA), Los Banos, Laguna. Philippines.
PALENGLENG, L. M., 2008. Final Report. Farmer Field School. Rural
Enterprise and Small Scale Commercial Agriculture Development Project.
The World Bank and Ministry of Agriculture, Armenia.
PALENGLENG, L. M., 2008. Farmer Field School Training Manual for Armenia.
Unpublished.
PEDON, D. G., 1998. Agroecosystem Management for Improved Human Health:
Applying Principles of Integrated Pest Management to People.
Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society of Animal
Science. Canada.
PONTIUS, J, R. DILTS, and A. BARTLETT, 2002. Ten Years of IPM Training
in Asia - From Farmer Field School to Community IPM. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Regional Office for Asia
and the Pacific. FAO Community IPM Programme.
SMELTZER, S. C. and B. G. BARE, 2004. Textbook of Medical-Surgical
Nursing. Lippingcott Williams and Wilkins., Vol.1., 10th Ed. P.5.
SCHUENEMAN, T. J., 1992. Journal of Extension. Vol. 30. No. 4. University of
Florida-Belle
Glade.
http://www.joe.org/joe/1992winter/ent.html.
Accessed on January 2009.
TOVIGNAN, D. S. and E. A. NUPPENAU. 2004. Adoption of Organic Cotton in
Benin: Does Gender Play a Role? A Paper presented to the Conference on
Rural Poverty Reduction through Research for Development and
Transformation. Berlin.
93
VAN DEN BERG, H., 2004. IPM Farmer Field Schools. A Synthesis of 25
Impact Evaluations. Wageningen University
VAN DER WIELE, C. F., 2002. Using Integrated Pest Management – Farmer
Field School as Development Relief. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation
Research, North Carolina State University, NC. USA.
VISAYAN, J. C., 2003. Competence and Empowerment of KASAKALIKASAN
Trainers in Cordillera Region: An Assessment. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
WANAWAN, M. T., 2005. Determinants of Utilizing Organic Vegetable
Technologies in Benguet Province. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Central Luzon State University. Science City of Munoz, Nueva Ecija.
p107, 143.
APPENDIX A
Letter to the Respondents
Republic of the Philippines
Benguet State University
GRADUATE SCHOOL
La Trinidad, Benguet
18 February 2009
______________________________
Municipal Agriculturist
Municipality of _________________
Province of ____________________
Dear Ma’am/Sir:
The undersigned is currently working on a research study entitled “Farmer
Field School as a Participatory Training and Research Approach to IPM in CAR”
as a requirement for the degree in Ph. D. – Rural Development at the Benguet
State University.
I choose to conduct the research with the intention that the results of the
study can hopefully contribute in the development of upscaling activities of
Farmer Field Schools. At the same time, this forms part of the documentation of
the status of FFS as an educational material in Extension System.
In this regard, may I humbly ask your assistance through the FFS trainers
to accomplish the questionnaire and identify four farmer graduates to also
accomplish an appropriate survey forms. Rest assured, the information and data
will be held confidential and acknowledged.
Very Truly Yours,
LUZVIMINDA M. PALENGLENG
Student Researcher
95
APPENDIX B
Control No. ______
Interview Schedule
(For FFS Trainers/Facilitators)
Part 1. A. Socio-economic Factors
1. Name: ______________________________________________________
2. Address: ____________________________________________________
3. Sex :
( ) female
( ) male
4. Age : ___________________
5. Civil Status: ( ) married
( ) single
6. Highest Educational Attainment: ( ) BS
( ) MS
( ) Ph. D
7. Field of Specialization in degree:
( ) Animal Husbandry/Vet Med ( ) Crop Protection (Entom/Plt Patho)
( ) Crop Science (Agro/Horti) ( ) Economics
( ) Extension/RD
( ) Farm Mechanization
( ) Forestry
( ) Home Mgt, Technology, Nutrition
( ) Soil Science
8. Position in government office:
( ) Agriculture technician
( ) Municipal Agriculturist/MAO
( ) Agriculturist 1,11
( ) Sr. Agriculturist
9. Current designation in office: as Coordinator in
( ) HVCC
( ) Corn
( ) Rice
( ) Livestock
( ) Fisheries
( ) RIC/4-HClub
( ) Others, please specify: __________________________________
B. FFS Experiences
1. Type of Training attended (TOT – Training of Trainers/TOS – Training of
Specialists):
( ) TOS on: ( ) Vegetables
( ) Rice
( ) Corn
( ) TOT on: ( ) Vegetables
( ) Rice
( ) Corn
2. Year graduated from TOT/TOS: ________________________________
3. No. of years you had been conducting FFS: ________________________
96
4. No. of FFS you conducted/co-facilitated/co-managed:
Commodity
Year
Number
1. Corn
2. Rice
3. Vegetable
4. Fruits
5. Livestock
6. Chicken
7. Agro-Forestry
8. Child Nutrition
9. Organic Farming
10. Others, pls specify: _________
C. FFS Related Trainings Attended
1. Type of FFS related trainings attended
Crash course for ( )vegetable; ( )rice; ( )corn; ( )others, pls specify:______
2. No. of FFS related training courses attended: _____________________
3. No. of FFS related consultations and workshops attended: ___________
4. No. of FFS related consultations and workshops facilitated: __________
Part ll. Motivations in FFS Implementation
1. Why did you implement FFS training and research on IPM? Please choose two
major reasons only?
______ to respond to an office mandate
______ to test the IPM program through FFS
______ to train farmers in IPM by research
______ to test my competences as FFS trainer
______ to learn and share knowledge and skill with farmers
______ others, please specify, _______________________________
2. What are your motivations/goals in implementing FFS on IPM?
______ presence of strong support from local executives
______ incentives from the program (monetary, scholarships, trainings,
others)
______ farmers reduce chemical inputs
______ higher income and profit of farmers
______ pesticide free produce commands better price
97
______ safer food produced
______ restoration and preservation of beneficial organisms
______ enhancement of biodiversity
______ regular encounter with farmers in the community
______ others, pls specify ____________________________________
3. Please indicate the level of applicability by your farmer graduates using the
scale: weak, moderate, and high.
Rating
Items Learned
WA
MA
HA
1. Reduce pesticide use
2. Selective use of pesticide
3. Use required amount of fertilizers
4. Observe the fields regularly
5. Selective use of planting materials and
varieties
6. Others, pls specify:________
4. Please indicate the degree of observability or visibility of effects manifested
by your trainees using the scale.
Effects of FFS manifested by Farmer graduates
Rating
NO
MO
HO
1. Increase in income
2. Better in profit
3. Change in farming practice/s from previous to
current
4. Reduction in chemical inputs
5. Farmer became more vocal or more involved
in community affairs
6. Farmer became generous to share his
technology to co farmers
7. Farmer do own simple experiments
8. Others, pls specify: ___________________
98
5. Please indicate how many percent of your farmers applied what they learned?
Percent (%) of farmers who applied each
item
Items Learned
5-
11-
21-
31-
41-
51-
61-
71
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
&
abo
ve
1. Reduced Pesticide Use
2. Selective use of pesticide
3. Used required amount of
fertilizers
4. Observed the fields
regularly
5. Selective use of planting
materials and varieties
Part lll. Extent of FFS Implementation in terms of the FFS Principles, Features
and Characteristics
1. Please indicate the degree of the effect of the FFS features and characteristics
on the quality of FFS training and research using the scale:
FFS Features and Characteristics
Low
Mod
High
1. Methodology: uses discovery based, hands
on, experiential, facilitation technique and
use of guide questions
2. Duration : one cropping period = planting
to harvesting
3. Number of Participants : 25-30 participants
4. Time of Day (8:00 – 12; 7:00 – 11:00)
5. Number of hours ( 4 hrs)
6. Subject Matter/Focus Topic: IPM
7. Sequence or Program of Activities
(opening prayer, recap, present activity for
the day, AESA, group dynamic
activity/unfreezing activity, special topic,
evaluation, planning and closing
8. Research theme: IPM
9. Research Design: Farmer Crop Protection
Practices versus IPM Practices
99
10. Field monitoring-conduct of weekly Agro
Ecosystem Analysis
11. Conduct insect zoos, disease zoos
12. Conduct of Field Day and Graduation
13. Calculation of incomes and profits of FFS
14. Others, please specify:
2. Please indicate the level of adaptability of each of the FFS features and
characteristics in your locality when you implemented your FFS training and
researches using the rating.
FFS Features and Characteristics
Low
Mod
High
1. Methodology: uses discovery based, hands
on, experiential, facilitation technique and
use of guide questions
2. Duration : one cropping period = planting
to harvesting
3. Number of Participants : 25-30 participants
4. Time of Day (8:00 – 12; 7:00 – 11:00)
5. Number of hours ( 4 hrs)
6. Subject Matter/Focus Topic: IPM
7. Sequence or Program of Activities
(opening prayer, recap, present activity for
the
day,
AESA,
group
dynamic
activity/unfreezing activity, special topic,
evaluation, planning and closing
8. Research theme: IPM
9. Research Design: Farmer Crop Protection
Practices versus IPM Practices
10. Field monitoring-conduct of weekly Agro
Ecosystem Analysis
11. Conduct insect zoos, disease zoos
12. Conduct of Field Day and Graduation
13. Calculation of incomes and profits of FFS
14. Others, please specify:
100
3. Please indicate the level of appropriateness of each of the FFS features and
characteristics in your area using the scale:
FFS Features and Characteristics
NA
MA
HA
1. Methodology: uses discovery based, hands
on, experiential, facilitation technique and
use of guide questions
2. Duration : one cropping period = planting
to harvesting
3. Number of Participants : 25-30 participants
4. Time of Day (8:00 – 12; 7:00 – 11:00)
5. Number of hours ( 4 hrs)
6. Subject Matter/Focus Topic: IPM
7. Sequence or Program of Activities
(opening prayer, recap, present activity for
the
day,
AESA,
group
dynamic
activity/unfreezing activity, special topic,
evaluation, planning and closing
8. Research theme: IPM
9. Research Design: Farmer Crop Protection
Practices versus IPM Practices
10. Field monitoring-conduct of weekly Agro
Ecosystem Analysis
11. Conduct insect zoos, disease zoos
12. Conduct of Field Day and Graduation
13. Calculation of incomes and profits of FFS
14. Others, please specify:
_________________
4. If you are to go back to your FFS training and research graduates to conduct
another FFS, please indicate the level of relevance of each of the FFS features
and characteristics to the same group of farmers using the scale:
Current FFS Features and Characteristics
Rating
NR
MD
HR
1. Methodology: uses discovery based, hands
on, experiential, facilitation technique and
use of guide questions
2. Duration : one cropping period - planting to
harvesting
3. Number of Participants : 25-30 participants
101
4. Time of Day (8:00 – 12; 7:00 – 11:00)
5. Number of hours ( 4 hrs)
6. Subject Matter/Focus Topic: IPM
7. Sequence or Program of Activities
(opening prayer, recap, present activity for
the day, AESA, group dynamic
activity/unfreezing activity, special topic,
evaluation, planning and closing
8. Research theme: IPM
9. Research Design: Farmer Crop Protection
Practices versus IPM Practices
10. Field monitoring-conduct of weekly Agro
Ecosystem Analysis
11. Conduct insect zoos, disease zoos
12. Conduct of Field Day and Graduation
13. Calculation of incomes and profits of FFS
14. Others, please specify:
5. Please indicate the degree of effect of the IPM-FFS principles, features and
characteristics on the income and profit of farmer using the scale: ( )weak,
( )moderately strong, ( )very strong
6. Please indicate the degree of effect of the IPM-FFS principles, features and
characteristics on the adaptability of IPM technologies by farmers using the
following scale: ( )weak, ( )moderately strong, ( )very strong
Part lV. Changes made in the IPM – FFS Principles, Features and Characteristics
1. Please indicate the changes or modifications you made in the FFS features and
characteristics to fit the conduct of your FFS training and research?
FFS Features and Characteristics
No
Modified
change
1. Methodology: uses discovery based, hands on,
experiential, facilitation technique and use of
guide questions
2. Duration : one cropping period - planting to
harvesting
3. Number of Participants : 25-30 participants
4. Time of Day (8:00 – 12; 7:00 – 11:00)
102
5. Number of hours ( 4 hrs)
6. Subject Matter/Focus Topic: IPM
7. Sequence or Program of Activities (opening
prayer, recap, present activity for the day,
AESA, group dynamic activity/unfreezing
activity, special topic, evaluation, planning and
closing
8. Research theme: IPM
9. Research Design: Farmer Crop Protection
Practices versus IPM Practices
10. Field monitoring-conduct of weekly Agro
Ecosystem Analysis
11. Conduct insect zoos, disease zoos
12. Conduct of Field Day and Graduation
13. Calculation of incomes and profits of FFS
14. Others, please specify:
2. If you are to go back to your FFS training and research graduates to conduct
another FFS, what do you recommend to modify or improve in the principles,
features and characteristics of FFS to improve the profitability of farming
activities the farmers?
FFS Features
Suggested Changes
1. Methodology: uses discovery based, hands
on, experiential, facilitation technique and
use of guide questions
2. Duration : one cropping period = planting
to harvesting
3. Number of Participants : 25-30 participants
4. Time of Day (8:00 – 12; 7:00 – 11:00)
5. Number of hours ( 4 hrs)
6. Subject Matter/Focus Topic: IPM
7. Sequence or Program of Activities
(opening prayer, recap, present activity for
the day, AESA, group dynamic
activity/unfreezing activity, special topic,
evaluation, planning and closing
8. Research theme: IPM
9. Research Design: Farmer Crop Protection
Practices versus IPM Practices
103
10. Field monitoring-conduct of weekly Agro
Ecosystem Analysis
11. Conduct insect zoos, disease zoos
12. Conduct of Field Day and Graduation
13. Calculation of incomes and profits of FFS
14. Others, please specify:
3. If you will conduct FFS training and research in the future for other
crops/commodity,
what
crop/commodity
do
you
suggest?_____________________
104
APPENDIX C
Control No. _____
Interview Schedule
(For Farmer FFS Graduates)
Part 1: A. Socio-economic Factors
1. Name: _______________________________________________________
2. Address:
___________________________________________________
3. Sex :
( ) Female
( ) Male
4. Age: _____________________
5. Highest Educational Attainment: ( ) Elementary ( ) High School ( ) College
6. Year when trained in FFS _______________________________________
7. During your FFS training, what crop did you use?, and what variety?
Crop
Variety
1
1
2
2
3
3
8. What crop/s do you plant now?, and what variety/ies?
Crop
Variety
1
1
2
2
3
3
9. Can you estimate an average (per hectare) (or per land area for vegetables) of
how much you saved and earned from practicing what you learned when you
attended FFS?
Benefits
Amount/Vol.
1. Cost of pesticide inputs
2. Cost of fertilizer inputs
3. Cost of labor
4. Increase in production
5. Increase in income
6. Increase in profit
105
Part ll. Motivations in Attending and Applying Learning from FFS on IPM
1. What were your motivations/goals in attending the FFS training and research
before?
______cannot refuse trainers who invited me to join, i know her/him well, and
he/she is a friend
______ influenced by my neighbor who is attending the training
______ persuaded by the presence of friends in the training
______ cannot refuse the local officials/leaders who invited them to attend
______ expected to learn new things from the training
______ expected to get any support or material things after the training
______ convinced with the objectives of the training
______ was an inspiration to others
______ others, pls specify ______________________________________
2. What are your motivations/goals in applying what you learned from the FFS
training and research?
______ reduced pesticide cost and usage
______ reduced fertilizer cost and usage
______ higher income and profit
______ higher yield
______ safer food produced
______ restoration and preservation of beneficial organisms
______ cleaner environment
______ others, pls specify _______________________________________
Part lll. Application of Lessons Learned in FFS on IPM
1. Was it easy to practice or apply what you learned from the FFS-IPM training?
( )Yes, Why? _________________________________________
( )No, Why? __________________________________________
2. Please indicate the level of your application of learning using the scale of
weak, moderate and high.
Learning
W
M
H
1. Conduct regular field monitoring
2. Consider pesticide as the last resort to control
pests
3. Use proper amount of fertilizers at the right time
106
4. Practice crop sanitation at all time
5. Check presence of beneficial organisms in the
farm regularly
6. Check presence of harmful organisms in the farm
regularly
7. Assess crop damages regularly
8. Compute income, profit, and yield increase from
FFS practice
9. Conduct own research in my field
10. Do farm recording
11. Others: please specify:____________________
3. Please indicate the level of effects of applying your learning using the scale: (
) Weak, ( ) Moderate, ( ) High.
4. Please give your reason/s for applying what you learned from IPM - FFS
training and research?
Learning
Reason for applying
1. Conduct regular field monitoring
2. Consider pesticide as the last resort
to control pests
3. Use proper amount of fertilizers at
the right time
4. Practice crop sanitation at all time
5. Check
presence
of
beneficial
organisms in the farm regularly
6. Check
presence
of
harmful
organisms in the farm regularly
7. Assess crop damages regularly
8. Compute income, profit, and yield
increase from FFS practice
9. Conduct own research in my field
10. Do farm recording
11. Others:
please
specify:_______________
5. If FFS training and research will be organized again, do you want to follow or
modify any of the FFS features and characteristics to better address the
profitability of your farming activity? Please suggest any modification.
107
FFS Features and characteristics
Foll
Mod
Suggested
ow
ify
Modification
1. Methodology: uses discovery
based, hands on, experiential,
facilitation technique and use of
guide questions
2. Duration : one cropping period
= planting to harvesting
3. Number of Participants : 25-30
participants
4. Time of Day (8:00 – 12; 7:00 –
11:00)
5. Number of hours ( 4 hrs)
6. Subject Matter/Focus Topic:
IPM
7. Sequence or Program of
Activities
(opening
prayer,
recap, present activity for the
day, AESA, group dynamic
activity/unfreezing
activity,
special
topic,
evaluation,
planning and closing
8. Research theme: IPM
9. Research Design: Farmer Crop
Protection Practices versus IPM
Practices
10. Field monitoring-conduct of
weekly
Agro
Ecosystem
Analysis
11. Conduct insect zoos, disease
zoos
12. Conduct of Field Day and
Graduation
13. Calculation of incomes and
profits of FFS
14. Others, please specify:
108
6. If you are to attend FFS training and research again, what particular topic
would like to talk about?
Num
Topics
Reason
ber
Integrated Pest Management
Integrated
Soil
Fertility
Management
Organic Farming
Food Processing
Marketing
Good Agricultural Practices
Farm Enterprise
Others; please specify:
7. Any other Comment about the FFS on IPM:
109
APPENDIX D
Acronyms
AESA
Agro Ecosystem Analysis
ATI
Agricultural Training Institute
DA
Department of Agriculture
CAR
Cordillera Administrative Region
FFS
Farmer Field School
FCPP
Farmer Crop Protection Practices
HADP
Highland Agriculture Development Project
HVCC
High Value Commercial Crops
IIBC
International Institute of Biological Control
IPM
Integrated Pest Management
LGU
Local Government Units
OAS
Office of the Agricultural Services
OPAg
Office of the Provincial Agriculturist
PAENRO
Provincial Agriculture, Environment and Natural Resource
Office
RFU
Regional Field Unit
TOS
Training of Specialists
TOT
Training of Trainers
UNFAO
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
110
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
The author was born on 21 July 1964 in Gueday, Besao, Mt. Province. She
finished her elementary education at Agawa Elementary School and secondary
education at St. James’ High School, Besao, Mt. Province. She finished Bachelor
Science in Agriculture major in Plant Pathology and minor in Soil Science in
1988 and Master of Science in Plant Pathology in 2004 at the Benguet State
University. While studying, she served as an Assistant Dormitory Matron, and
Dormitory Matron of the then St. Ursula’s Dormitory, an Anglican church
institution at Km 5, La Trinidad, Benguet from 1987 to 1990.
In October 1987 to June 1989, she worked as sales clerk and promoter of
biopesticide (Bacillus thuringensis) with ABBOT AgroChemical Company.
Stationed in the agro-store not only exposed her to the variety of agrochemicals
that ranged from the most toxic to biological pesticides used in agriculture not
only in the region but also in nearby regions. She also witnessed how fast
pesticides were dislodged from the shelves of the store.
As a research assistant of the RP-German Biological Plant Protection
Project, from July 1989 to May 1990, she had been rearing biological control
agents: Diadegma semiclausum and Cotesia plutella together with their host –
Plutella xyllostella (diamond back moth) which is also a host for the production
of Bauveria sp. at the laboratory of the Northern Philippine Root Crop Research
and Training Center (NPRCTC), BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet.
111
In June 1990 to May 1994, she landed as agriculturist of the Highland
Agriculture Development Project (HADP) where she started to acquire
knowledge, skill and processes in farmer participatory research, extension and
training. Researches conducted with farmers focused on adaptability trials
including the use of Diadegma sp. These skills were further enhanced through
works with the International Institute of Biological Control (IIBC – CAB
International), from May 1994 to Sept. 1996. This was the massive promotion of
Biological Control as the flagship of Integrated Pest Management through the
Farmer Field School approach of research, extension and training. Through this
works, the author was able to share these skills and knowledge to her colleagues
in the agriculture sector as trainer-facilitator in the conduct of National and
Regional Vegetable Integrated Pest Management Training of Specialists (TOS),
Training of Trainers (TOT), Crash Courses, Refresher Courses, and Farmer Field
Schools in various barangays in selected parts of the country.
This background also has brought the author to international trainings and
workshops as resource person and consultant, to the Masters Training Ecological
Crop Management of Vegetable in Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies in 2002,
Sensitization Workshop on Farmer Participatory Approaches for Policy Makers in
the Caribbean Region in 2002; Regional Workshop on Farmer Participatory
Approaches to Ecological Crop Management in Trinidad & Tobago, West Indies,
2000, and the International Training Course and Workshop on the Evaluation of
112
Pesticide Effects on Natural Enemies and its Implication to Pesticide Registration
in Malaysia, 1995.
In her commitment to reach out more Filipino farmers, she joined the
Agricultural Training Institute – Cordillera Administrative Region as Training
Specialist ll from 1997 until March 2009.
The author further served as FFS international consultant to the Rural
Enterprise and Small Scale Commercial Agriculture Development Project
(RESCADP) with the World Bank in the Republic of Armenia in August and
November 2008; and to the UNDP Tsunami Recovery Program – Livelihoods
Project in the Republic of Maldives from August 2007 – March 2008.
LUZVIMINDA M. PALENGLENG, October 2009. Factors Affecting the
Implementation of Farmer Field School on Integrated Pest Management in the
Cordillera Administrative Region. Benguet State University, La Trinidad,
Benguet.
Adviser: Bernard S. Tad-awan, Ph. D.
ABSTRACT
This study assessed the factors affecting the implementation of FFS-IPM in the
Cordillera Administrative Region. The result can be used as basis in developing relevant
follow up and upscaling activities for the FFS Program.
Fifty three active trainers and 150 farmer graduates from 1993-2008 were
interviewed in 22 municipalities in all the provinces of CAR. Semi-structured interviews,
focused group discussions and triangulation were used to collect data, and data were
subjected to qualitative analysis, descriptive statistics and correlation analysis.
Most trainer respondents are middle aged (41 – 55 years); more females;
81% were college graduates, 19 had masters degrees in nine different disciplines;
74% graduated from TOT, 21% from TOS, and 6% from crush courses. Each trainer
implemented an average of seven FFS in three years; 75% attended FFSIPM related
training courses and workshops. Majority of the farmer respondents were 41 – 55 years
old and literate with a minimum of high school level education. Farmers saved 54.97%
on the cost of pesticides, 51.90% on fertilizers, and 43.20% on cost of labor. About
16.19% of farmers reported increase in production, 16.68% increase in income, and
15.56% increase in profit.
The motivating factors of trainers in implementing FFS-IPM, in a descending
order, were to produce safe food, restore and preserve beneficial organisms, reduce
chemical inputs, enhance biodiversity, increase income and profit of farmers, and the
opportunity to regularly meet other farmers. The reasons for implementing the FFS were
to learn and share knowledge and skills with farmers, train farmers in IPM by research, to
respond to office mandate, and a few were challenged to test their ability as trainers of
IPM. Three motivational factors namely: higher income and profit of farmers, safer food
production, and the enhancement of biodiversity significantly influenced the adaptability,
appropriateness and relevance of the features and characteristics of FFS-IPM. The more
motivated the trainer to effect higher income and profit by the farmers, the lesser was
their adaptability of the FFS – IPM features and characteristics; the more motivated the
trainer to effect the enhancement of biodiversity, the higher was their adaptability; and
the more motivated the trainers to effect the production of safe food by the farmers, the
higher the perceived relevance are the features and characteristics of FFS-IPM.
The overall degree of adaptability of the features and characteristics was
moderate; the degree of appropriateness and relevance were both high. Number of
participants, time of the day, number of hours, and the conduct of insect/disease zoos
were consistently rated moderate on adaptability, appropriateness and relevance. High
degree of adaptability was noted with trainers from Benguet, Ifugao and Kalinga,
moderate from Abra, Apayao and Mt. Province. High level of appropriateness was noted
with trainers from Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga and Mt.
ii
Province; moderate from Abra and Apayao; and high degree of relevance from Apayao,
Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga and moderate from Abra and Mt. Province.
The effects of FFS on the income and profit as well as the adoption of IPM technologies
were moderate.
Gender, season long training in FFS-IPM on vegetables and rice, and attendance
to FFS-IPM related workshops significantly affected adaptability, appropriateness and
relevance of the features and characteristics of FFS-IPM.
Females had higher adaptability than males. More attendance to season long
training on FFS-IPM of vegetables and rice, the less appropriate are the features and
characteristics of the FFS-IPM. The more attendance to season long training in
vegetables, the less relevance was perceived. More attendance to consultation workshops,
the lesser was appropriateness perceived.
Farmers attended FFS basically to learn new things, to get support or material
things after the training, due to influence of neighbors, and as inspiration to others. The
major motivations in applying knowledge and skills gained were higher income and
profit, safer food, reduced cost of pesticides and reduced cost of fertilizers. Degree of
knowledge and skills applied differed: Abra, Apayao, Benguet, and Kalinga had
moderate level of application; and weak application in Ifugao and Mt. Province.
Significant differences existed among the provinces in changes made on the time
of day, number of hours, subject matter, research design, and conduct of insect/disease
zoo. Number of hours, subject matter, research theme, and field monitoring were
modified. Suggestions for modifications were on methodology, subject matter, duration,
insect/disease zoo, research design, AESA and the number of hours. Topics suggested for
iii
future FFS were organic farming, soil fertility management, and integrated pest
management.
Based on the findings and conclusions, the following are recommended:
Younger FFS core trainers with appropriate fields of specialization, and with
potential skills and competencies for development are needed.
FFS–IPM has widespread benefits accruing to public health, environmental protection,
economy and education. The program should therefore be placed in a broader rural
development perspective. The DA can lead by pooling multi-sectoral resources to support
a comprehensive program on safe food production.
Though the program is LGU-led, the DA is still recognized as the source of fund.
Thus, DA should institute a strong monitoring and evaluation scheme; treat FFS as a
developmental program; and use graduates of FFS as partners in implementing
agriculture interventions. This way, confusions by the agriculture technicians and the
farmers about programs and projects implemented by the DA is corrected.
The following have to be re-examined to improve the quality and cost
effectiveness of the training program: the duration, number of participants, time of day,
number of hours, and conduct of insect/disease zoos; and the causes of the differences in
the degree of implementation among the provinces. The DA should accept training and
workshop participants only where it is strategically important, and where the training
effort can have maximum effect.
To sustain the attendance of farmers, the objectives and goals of the program
should be clear, and understood during the ground working activities.
iv
Trainers must have new and relevant information for every session to maintain the
interest of farmers.
An exit plan should be developed with FFS-IPM graduates. The LGUs should
develop mechanisms to keep track of agricultural production management practices of
farmers. Farmers can also be encouraged to pay acceptable training costs, so farmers will
better appreciate learning and improve their knowledge and skills.
The specific suggestions and comments concerning the implementation of FFS-
IPM with regards the features and characteristics should be evaluated further for their
usefulness to the program.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
i
Abstract
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
i
Table of Contents
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
vi
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
Conceptual Framework
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
Statement of the Problem
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
Hypotheses of the Study
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
Population and Locale of the Study .
.
.
.
.
18
Data Collection Instruments .
.
.
.
.
.
23
Data Collection Procedures .
.
.
.
.
.
25
Treatment of Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Profile of Respondents
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
Socio-Economic Profile
.
.
.
.
. .
.
29
FFS Experiences
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
36
Relationships of Motivations/Goals of Trainers
in Implementing FFS .
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
Motivations/Goals of Trainers in
Implementing FFS .
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
Reasons of Trainers in Implementing
vi
the FFS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
46
Relationships Between Motivational
Factors and Extent of FFS – IPM
Features and Characteristics’
Implementation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
47
Extent of Implementation of the Farmer Field
School Features and Characteristics .
.
.
.
.
50
Degree of Adaptability of FFS
Features and Characteristics .
.
.
.
.
.
50
Degree of Appropriateness of FFS
Features and Characteristics .
.
.
.
.
.
53
Degree of Relevance of FFS Features
and Characteristics for the Future
FFS Implementation .
.
.
.
.
.
.
55
Perceived Degree of Effect of FFS on
the Income and Profit and
Adoption of IPM
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
57
Relationship Between Socio-Economic Factors of
Trainers and Extent of FFS – IPM Features and
Characteristics Implementation
.
.
.
.
..
59
Reasons of Farmers in Attending
the FFS regular sessions
.
.
.
.
.
..
62
Motivations/Goals of Farmers in Applying the
Knowledge and Skills Gained from FFS
.
.
.
..
64
Degree of Application of Knowledge and
vii
Skills Gained from the FFS .
.
.
.
.
.
67
Degree of Changes Made and Suggestions in
the FFS-IPM Features and Characteristics .
.
.
.
71
Degree of Changes Made in the FFS-IPM
Features and Characteristics .
.
.
.
.
.
71
Suggested Modifications in the FFS-IPM
Features and Characteristics .
.
.
.
.
..
73
Suggested Topics for Future FFS
.
.
.
.
.
79
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
81
Conclusions .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
84
Recommendations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
87
LITERATURE CITED
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
90
APPENDICES
A. Sample Letter to the Respondents .
.
.
.
.
94
B. Interview Schedule (For FFS Trainers/Facilitators) .
.
.
95
C. Interview Schedule (For FFS Farmer Graduates) .
.
.
104
D. Acronyms .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
109
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .
.
.
.
.
.
.
110
viii
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
The Farmer Field School (FFS), a participatory training and
research approach started in Southeast Asia twenty years ago. Since that time,
FFS rapidly spread globally due to the positive impacts experienced by most
countries that used it. The FFS has drawn widespread enthusiasm from
international donors to use the strategy as a platform for rural development. In
2008, Palengleng noted that FFS was used as a conduit to develop livelihood,
rural enterprises, and small-scale commercial agriculture development projects.
FFS fostered rural development and encouraged attainment of critical mass to
upscale the economic status of farmers. The FFS sets out to educate local people
to enhance their capability for informed decision-making in response to what are
always context-dependent pest problems, and thus also for adaptive management
(Van den Berg, 2004).
FFS started as a crop-based Integrated Pest Management (IPM) -
promoting strategy. But now, FFS methodology is used for a wide range of rural
(and even urban) learning activities (Global FFSNet, 2008).
The FFS is described as a “school without walls” (IIBC, 1996), and based
on adult education principles. It is a continuous one-season-long hands-on,
experiential participatory training and research activity that builds on processes of
2
group learning and experimentation. It also serves as a venue by which farmers
and trainers share their personal experiences, observations and concepts on crop
production management. Thus, FFS creates a more scientific understanding of the
crop or livestock agro-ecosystems. A summary of the definition of FFS from
various sources indicates that FFS is a “down-to-earth” participatory activity for
training and research that is facilitated by skilled trainers with farmers themselves
making crop management decisions. This ultimately leads to better understanding
about safe food production while increasing income and profit by the farmers and
enhancing biodiversity.
The FFS was first introduced in the Philippines in 1992 for IPM in rice
husbandry, patterned from Indonesia’s experiences in 1989. In 1993, FFS in
vegetable production was first piloted. This vegetable FFS project was a multi-
sectoral endeavor, and supported by the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization (UNFAO), the Highland Agriculture Development Project-
Department of Agriculture (HADP-DA), Cordillera Administrative Region
(CAR), and with the cooperation of the Local Government Unit (LGU) of Atok,
Benguet. From this modest start, FFS has grown into a self - reliant national
program that is wholly funded from the national government's resources
equivalent to about US$3.0 million annually (Binamira, 2001).
Pursuant to Memorandum Order 126 of May 1993, The National IPM
Program locally dubbed as Kasaganaan ng Sakahan at Kalikasan or
3
KASAKALIKASAN served as the legal basis for implementing the FFS on IPM
in the Philippines. This makes IPM as the standard approach to crop husbandry,
and using the FFS approach. Today, the program has expanded, not only to other
major crops such as rice, corn, vegetables, and fruit trees, but also to other
industries like animal production, agro-forestry, and child nutrition. FFS is also
integrated into the curriculum of some vocational arts courses.
For the past 18 years since FFS was introduced to the Philippines, the
name of the program and the implementation procedures have not changed even
with the frequent changes of administration in both local and national government
units. It is also one of the government program interventions that has reached the
far-flung rural communities, even those without roads, and accessed only by foot
trails.
The agriculture technicians from the Local Government Units (LGUs), are
tasked to make proposals and conduct FFS in their respective areas. These FFS
agricultural technicians graduate from a one-season-long “Training of Trainers
(TOT) or Training of Specialist (TOS) in Farmer Field School on Integrated Pest
Management”. Thus, the direct implementation of FFS is the responsibility and
work of trained agriculture technicians in the local government units. In CAR,
Visayan (2003) claimed that all FFS trainers have high managerial competence in
terms of planning, directing, decision making, resource management, planning
and preparing budgetary requirements for the project. On the average, one FFS-
4
IPM trainer facilitated a total of seven batches of farmer field schools in his entire
period of conducting FFS (DA - RFU, CAR, 2004).
Although the implementation of FFS in the Cordillera Administrative
Region is continuing, a steady decline is observed in the number of FFS
conducted in all the provinces since 1993 up to the present (Figure 1). Some of
the reasons in the decline can be attributed to the decreasing number of trained
FFS trainers due to mandatory change of duties and responsibilities of trained
LGU agriculture technicians to other offices as an effect of promotion, transfer of
assignment and retirement as observed in the profile of trainers (ATI-CAR, 2008).
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Rice
HVCC
Corn
Total
Figure 1. Trend in the implementation of FFS in the Cordillera Administrative
Region from 1993 to 2004 (Source: DA-RFU, CAR)
5
Other trainers simply stopped conducting FFS. They claimed that they did
not have support from their local executives or from other concerned institutions.
Motivation can increase productivity level in several times and that highly
motivated workers can produce up to 15% more goods and services under the
same work conditions as their non or less-motivated co-workers
(http://www.essay-911.com/samples/Theories.htm, 2009). Along this line, it is
important to know what motivates the remaining few trainers to persistently
conduct FFS.
Moreover, with the widespread use of FFS for numerous crops, livestock,
agroforestry, in child nutrition, at various agro-ecological systems; diverse socio–
cultural and economic situations; and different constraints and purposes may have
led to innovations or variations in the process. These innovations need to be noted
and re-examined in terms of their: a) positive contributions to the further
development of the approach, b) the extent to which they reflect the core
principles underlying FFS and IPM, and c) efforts to maintain the quality of the
program.
A number of earlier studies delved much on evaluating FFS impact and
focused on the farmers and the FFS program itself. However, sentiments of direct
implementers and the agriculture technologists also have to be known and have to
be heard. It is therefore imperative that after 18 years of implementing the FFS –
IPM as a farmer participatory training and research approach, there is a need to
6
assess the factors affecting and influencing FFS implementation as experienced
by the farmers and from the viewpoint of the trainer – facilitators to meet
changing environments.
Pontius et al. (2002) mentioned that leading an FFS appears easy in the
hands of an experienced facilitator/trainer. The key is confidence and this only
comes with experience. Facilitation by the trainer is one aspect that affects
implementation when facilitators feel they lack technical knowledge, that leads to
lack of self confidence resulting to lecturing; mastery of the facilitation skills is
needed to conduct an FFS; and inadequate support and supervision by concerned
trainers. In Bangladesh, CARE discovered that most of their Farmer IPM trainers
found social recognition to be more important than the potential of earning money
as farmer IPM trainers. Money is not the most important motivational issue.
Damag as cited by Legaspi (1995) mentioned that higher income is not
necessary for farmers to be able to later adopt technologies. Farm size, family
income, capital source do not affect adoption of technology. The low level of
farmer education is a significant factor to extension work and the low educational
attainment is associated with conservatism and reluctance to accept new improved
technology. The institutional environment, commercial chemicals, extension
support incentives and logistics play a vital role in the technology adoption
process (Drabick as cited by Legaspi, 1995).
7
In view of the foregoing, the results of this study may provide information
and clues on how to re-energize the program and improve the quality of the
training. The “technology transfer” approach to agricultural extension continues
to decline due to limited success (Gallagher et al., 2009). In its place, FFS is part
of the growing interest in “Education for All” and continuing education. And the
current trend of FFS moving outside the scope of agriculture is expected to
continue. The adaptation of FFS principles, features, and characteristics is needed
to look at gaps in the implementing process.
Moreover, findings of this study can be used as basis in developing
relevant follow-up and upscaling activities for the FFS program. Is it expected
that the results of this study will provide vital information in FFS implementation
to enhance better adoption of IPM technologies.
Conceptual Framework
FFS Implementation
The direct implementation of FFS is done by trained agriculture
technicians in the local government units who are equipped with the knowledge
and skills in running the program. The process by which FFS is implemented
observes the principles, features and characteristics of IPM – FFS that served as
the standard protocol. This entails a rigid series of preparatory activities like
budget approval by local executives, community organization, procurement of
8
supplies and materials, preparation of learning materials during sessions, and
preparing and facilitating weekly activities.
FFS is a dynamic, rather than a static process. Owing to its principles and
features, by design, its implementation needs much time, patience and effort by
the implementer to complete a continuing one crop-season research and training
course. There are unrecorded allegations, comments, and feedbacks alleging that
the “standard” process is not being followed. The question is, do the deviations
really diminish the quality of the FFS process? do these modifications result in a
better FFS due to the innovativeness of the trainer-facilitator? Cottingham (1998)
stated that the danger with standardization is distortion from the basic principles.
Clearly, it is difficult to define what constitutes distortion as opposed to creative
adaptation/evolution. The data gathered from this study would be used as input to
develop upscaling activities for FFS.
Archer (1997) reported that the most effective approach at the trainer-
facilitator’s level is that, the trainer-facilitators have to be actively engaged in
formulating their own techniques; taking ownership of the approach and
internalizing it. Without this internalization, they will have a very limited ability
to effectively facilitate a process to others.
With respect to FFS farmer-graduates going back to ”conventional”
farming, it was stated during a Global FFS forum in 2008 that FFS is not in all
cases the most effective or efficient approach, but rather a learning tool and not a
9
purpose of its own (Global FFSNet, 2008). Schueneman (1992) mentioned that
production - related pest management is extremely important and constantly
changing. These remarks give ideas as to whether the lessons learned are still
practiced and adapted by the farmer graduates as time goes by. There are
reportedly thousands of farmer- graduates of FFS - IPM in rice, corn, vegetables
and other commodities. But regardless of the number of graduates, the
adaptability of lessons learned at present has not been documented up to this day.
Finding out the state of adaptation of lessons learned by the farmers can give
further insights for the improvement of the FFS process.
Other factors that may affect the implementation of the FFS process may
include age, sex, educational background, field of specialization, professional
experiences of trainers and the trainer – facilitators themselves.
The basic implementation guidelines and schedules are perceived by some
as too rigid – not allowing flexibility (Gallagher et al., 2009). Working on the
core principles of participation and adult learning, there are lots of innovative FFS
applications coming out of the work of skilled FFS trainer – facilitators. Any
innovation, deviation and modification as a result of the adaptability to local
circumstances serve as continuing challenges needed for an effective FFS
program implementation.
10
IPM – FFS Principles
The implementation of FFS is anchored and guided by the IPM and FFS
principles, its features and characteristics that make it unique from any
conventional extension, training and research methods.
IPM principles (KASAKALIKASAN):
1) Grow a healthy crop,
2) Conserve natural enemies,
3) Observe the field regularly, and
4) Farmer become expert in their own field
The FFS principles according to Medina and Callo, 1997; and IIBC, 1996
mention that:
1) The field is the primary learning resource. All learning activities take
place in the field or are based on what is happening in the field. The
field therefore, becomes the main reference, the primary learning
material, and focus of learning.
2) Experience forms the basis of learning. All learning is based on
farmers’ experiences in the field. Activities that take place in the field
form the basis of discussion and analysis by farmers who arrive at
concepts which they test and improve through further field activities.
11
3) Decision-making guides the learning process. FFS focuses on the
analysis of the agro-ecosystem of the crop. Such analysis help farmers
gain insight into the ecological interactions in the field.
4) Training last throughout the entire growing season of the crop. The
IPM “field school” lasts through out the entire growing season of the
crop. Farmers acquire a firm understanding of the relevant IPM
concepts for each stage of the crop, from planting to harvesting.
5) The curriculum is detailed and coordinated with local conditions of the
field school. The field school curriculum is based on the materials used
for the IPM training of trainers (TOTs). The materials selected are
based on the appropriateness to the field school, the local condition of
the field, and the problems and needs of FFS farmers.
Features and Characteristics of Farmer Field School (KASAKALIKASAN
Program Document, 1994, and Palengleng, 2008):
Features and Characteristics:
1. Methodology
- discovery based, hands-on, experiential,
use of guide questions and facilitation
techniques
2. Duration
- Season-long, one crop cycle - planting to
harvesting, meet ½ day per week
3. No. of Hours and
- Half day and morning sessions
Time of Day
4. No. of Participants
- 25-30 farmers
12
5. Venue
- Study plots as main learning resource,
discussions under a shade near study
plots
6. Curriculum
- Based on TOT material for IPM
7. Subject Matter
- IPM focused on Integrated Pest
Management, Integrated Nutrient
Management
8. Number of Trainers
- at least 2 trained trainer facilitating one
FFS
9. Field
Monitoring
- Conduct of weekly AESA
Technique
10. Research Theme
- Farmers’ Crop Protection Practices
versus IPM Practices
11. Conduct of Field
- Normally at harvesting time
Day and
Graduation
The study assumes that the FFS process is complex and dynamic. Many
factors or variables determine whether the underlying principles, features and
characteristics of FFS – IPM are still adaptable, appropriate, and relevant to
address the effects of a changing environment and the needs of farmers for better
incomes and profits.
Figure 2 illustrates the schematic diagram of the study. This shows the
relationship of the independent, the dependent variables as well as the intervening
variables.
The independent variables which consist of the IPM – FFS principles,
features and characteristics are assessed and measured in terms of their
13
adaptability, appropriateness and relevance to future FFS implementation and
their influences on the application of IPM technologies. According to Pontius et
al. (2002), FFS has a standard model which establishes a norm for the
implementation of an FFS. There is plenty of room for variation as long as the
resulting process is learner-centered, participatory and relies on an experiential
learning approach. There have been variations in the standard rice IPM FFS
model and different situations call for adaptations. When an FFS is conducted in a
crop other than rice, there are necessarily changes based on factors such as the
key growth stages of the crop, local cropping patterns and specific local problems.
Any FFS should rely on the same process; it is the content that changes as the FFS
is conducted with different crops. The core principles, features and characteristics
underpin any FFS - IPM. The variations in the FFS - IPM models are affected by
the intervening variables; the trainers’ as well as the farmers’ socio-economic and
motivating factors.
The effectiveness of the FFS-IPM principles, features and characteristics
are determined according to their adaptability, appropriateness, and relevance to
farmers or groups of farmers which are mentioned as low, moderate or high. The
extent by which the FFS-IPM principles, features and characteristics are
implemented are influenced by the trainers’ and farmer trainees’ socio-economic
backgrounds and motivations. The changes or innovations made were identified
as no change or modified.
14
DEPENDENT
INDEPENDENT
VARIABLES
VARIABLES
Extent of FFS - IPM
FFS – IPM
Implementation
• Principles
• Features and
Characteristics
• Trainers’ application of
principles, features and
characteristics
Adaptability
- high
- moderate
- low
INTERVENING
Appropriateness
VARIABLES
- high
- moderate
- low
FFS Trainer-Facilitator
Relevance
• Socio-Economic Factors
high
• Motivational Factors
moderate
low
Changes/Innovations
FFS Farmer Graduate
- as is
• Socio-Economic Factors
- modified
• Farmers’ Application of
• Motivational Factors
IPM Technologies
- high
- moderate
- weak
Figure 2. Paradigm of the study
15
Statement of the Problem
The study determined the factors affecting the implementation of Farmer
Field School Integrated Pest Management in the Cordillera Administrative
Region.
This study aimed to provide answers to the following questions:
1. What is the profile of respondents?
2. What is the relationship between the motivating factors and the extent
of FFS implementation, and the reasons in implementing the FFS approach?
3. What is the extent of FFS implementation along adaptability,
appropriateness, relevance of the principles, features and characteristic of IPM –
FFS with respect to: a) Methodology; b) Duration of the Training; c) Number of
Participants; d) Time of Day; e) Number of Hours; f) Subject Matter; g) Sequence
of the Activities; h) Research Theme; i) Research Design; j) Field Monitoring
Techniques – Weekly AESA; k) Conduct of Insect/Disease Zoos; l) Conduct of
Field Day and Graduation; and m) Calculation of Incomes and Profits and the
perceived effects to income and profits as well as the application of IPM
technologies?
4. What is the relationship between the socio-economic factors and the
extent of FFS implementation?
16
5. What are the reasons of farmers in attending FFS sessions, motivations
in applying the knowledge and skills gained from the FFS training, and degree of
application of learning?
6. What is the degree of change in the FFS features and characteristics?
Hypotheses of the Study
Based on the specific problems, the following hypotheses are put forward
for testing:
1.a) There are no significant differences in the motivating factors and
reasons in implementing FFS;
1.b) There is no relationship between the motivating factors and the extent
of FFS implementation;
2. The are no significant differences in the extent of FFS - IPM
implementation in terms of the adaptability, appropriateness, and relevance of the
principles, features and characteristic of IPM – FFS with respect to: a)
Methodology; b) Duration of the Training; c) Number of Participants; d) Time of
Day; e) Number of Hours; f) Subject Matter; g) Sequence of the Activities; h)
Research Theme; i) Research Design; j) Field Monitoring Techniques – Weekly
AESA; k) Conduct of Insect/Disease Zoos l) Conduct of Field Day and
Graduation; and m) Calculation of Incomes;
17
3. There is no relationship between the socio-economic factors of trainers
on the extent of FFS implementation;
4.a) There are no significant differences between the reasons in attending
the FFS sessions and the motivational factors in adopting the learning gained from
FFS training;
4.b) The level of application of learning by the IPM – FFS farmer
graduates is significantly higher than low adoption;
5. There are no significant changes in the features and characteristics of
FFS.
18
METHODOLOGY
This section presents the research design, population and locale of the
study, data collection instruments, data collection procedures and treatment of
data.
Research Design
The study used statistical computations to determine correlations using
both quantitative and qualitative data. This design enabled the researcher to
establish any relationships that existed to influence the hypothesized extent of
FFS implementation. Both the quantitative and qualitative approach helped the
researcher to look at any suggestions in improving future FFS.
Population and Locale of the Study
There were two groups of respondents in the study. The first group
consisted of 53 trainers or 43% of the active trainers who conducted FFSs and
who were trained either in the Training of Specialists, Training of Trainers or
Crash Courses. The second group comprised of 150 FFS farmer graduates from
1993 to the present and who were trained in the different commodities. The
breakdown of respondents in each province is shown in Table 1.
19
Table 1. Distribution of respondents by province and municipality
NUMBER
PROVINCE
MUNICIPALITY
Trainer
Farmers
Abra (OPAg)
2
-
Bangued
1
6
Lagangilang
1
5
La Paz
1
7
Pennarubia
1
3
Pidigan
1
3
Apayao (OAS)
1
-
Luna
4
10
Pudtol
1
5
Sta Marcela
-
5
Benguet (OPAg)
1
-
Atok
3
8
Kibungan
-
4
Trinidad
3
2
Tuba
2
9
Ifugao (PAENRO)
5
-
Alfonso Lista
4
23
Kiangan
-
3
Lamut
1
-
Kalinga (OAS)
1
-
Pinukpuk
1
5
Rizal
2
6
Tabuk
8
24
Mt. Province (OPAg)
4
-
Bauko
2
6
Bontoc
2
11
Natonin
1
4
Tadian
-
1
Total
53
150
20
The study covered the six provinces of the Cordillera Administrative
Region (Figures 3 and 4). The provinces of Benguet and Mt. Province are the
major semi-temperate vegetable growing areas that supply 70% of the total
vegetable needs of the country (Cheng and Bersamira, 1997). Kalinga is known
as the rice granary of CAR and also has considerable corn production. The
provinces of Apayao, Ifugao and Abra produce rice and corn as their main
agricultural commercial crops.
According to DA-RFU, CAR (2009), the Cordillera Administrative
Region conducted two Training of Specialists (TOS) on IPM – FFS of
Vegetables. These were held in Mt. Province and Benguet in 1994 and 1995 to
train a core of vegetable FFS – IPM Specialists. Another two Training of Trainers
(TOT) on IPM of Vegetables were conducted in Benguet in 1994 and 2001 to
capacitate the local government units (LGU) agriculture technologists. Four TOT
on FFS - IPM for rice were hosted in the provinces of Kalinga, Apayao, Ifugao
and Abra in 1995, 1996, 1997, and 2000 respectively. Lastly, one TOT on FFS -
IPM for Corn was conducted in Ifugao in 2003. Participants of the above courses
came from the local government units’ agricultural services in the provincial and
municipal levels as well as from the national government agencies.
21
Figure 3. Location of the study area (Cordillera Administrative Region) in the
Philippines
22
Figure 4. Map of the study area - The Cordillera Administrative Region
23
The computation of the sample size relative to the population used the
following formula (Broto, 2008).
Formula:
n = ___N___
1 + Ne2
Where :
n
= sample size
N
= population size
e2
= margin of error
Data Collection Instrument
A survey questionnaire was used to collect information needed for the
quantitative portion. It consisted of a combination of structured and open ended
questions. Guided questions were also used to gather relevant information needed
for the qualitative portion. Secondary data were sourced-out from printed
documents, internet and books to compliment data collected.
The quantitative data covered socio-economic factors; trainers’
experiences, FFS related trainings attended and facilitated; motivational factors in
conducting FFS as well as the adaptation of learning from the FFS training and
research by the farmer graduates. In some instances, these data were validated
through informal group and individual discussions. Key informants interviews,
and informal group discussions were used in the qualitative approach.
24
The survey forms or questionnaires were pre-tested in Kalinga. The
questionnaires were then revised according to the comments and responses of the
respondents. Items found irrelevant were deleted, while some questions were
modified to facilitate easy responses from respondents.
All primary data were collected using a pre-tested questionnaire
(Appendices B and C). These instruments covered all the variables analyzed in
relation to the hypotheses of the study. The instrument was categorized as
follows:
Part 1 – this portion covers three sections:
a) Socio – economic aspects (age, sex, education, field of specialization,
position in governments office, and current designations);
b) FFS experiences (type of training attended, year graduated from
training, number of years conducting FFS, and number of FFS conducted);
c) FFS training, related trainings attended (kind of commodity during,
training attended, number of FFS training courses attended; number of
FFS related consultation and workshops attended, and number of training
and workshops facilitated.
Part 11 – Motivational factors and reasons in implementing FFS approach for
training and research.
Part 111 – Extent of FFS – IPM implementation of the FFS-IPM features
principles, and characteristics in terms of the adaptability, appropriateness,
25
relevance, adherence and FFS effect on the income and profit of farmers
and adaptability of IPM technologies
Part IV – Degree of application of knowledge and skills gained from the training
by farmers.
Data Collection Procedures
The first level of data collection was done at the regional level where the
IPM Program (KASAKALIKASAN) documents were accessed and reviewed for
relevant information needed. Data pertaining to the list of IPM – FFS training
activities and the list of graduates were obtained from the regional IPM-FFS
coordinating unit office, regional field unit of the Department of Agriculture –
CAR. These data served as the basis in determining the respondents from the
provinces. The trainer respondents were selected based on the following criteria:
a) must be a graduate of a season long training of either TOS, TOT or crash
course on IPM – FFS of any commodity, b) must have implemented Farmer Field
School after graduating from the season long training, and c) is still connected
with the agriculture sector. Please take note that not all graduates of any of the
above season long training implemented FFS after their training. The farmer
respondents were randomly selected from the FFS conducted by the trainer
respondents.
26
Letters asking permission to collect data and request for assistance from
the trainer in collecting data from farmers were delivered to the Provincial
Agriculturists in selected municipalities. Another letter to the identified trainer -
respondents was attached to the individual set of questionnaires. The second level
of data gathering was the conduct of interviews with trainers.
The third level was the data collection with the farmers. Generally, groups
of farmers from a place were assembled, and interviews were done at one time.
The respondents fill up the form as interviewers guide the process. Short group
discussions were done after the filling up of forms to gather qualitative
information.
Treatment of Data
The data were tabulated and categorized. Descriptive statistical tools such
as frequency distribution, percentages, ranking, and weighted mean were used. To
test the significant differences of the means, Cochran’s Q-test, and analysis of
variance were used with the SPSS program. The Cochran’s Q-test was applied in
determining the respondents’ motivational factors and reasons in implementing
the FFS and the suggestions for modifications and topics for the upscaling of FFS
activities.
The analysis of variance was employed in the comparison of the extent of
FFS implementation in terms of the adaptability, appropriateness and relevance of
27
the features and characteristics of FFS - IPM and IPM technology adaptation by
provinces. The values under the F-distribution served as basis for rejecting or
accepting the hypothesized extent of FFS implementation. Thus, the hypothesized
value is rejected if Fc is lesser than 0.05 level of significance otherwise, the
hypothesized value is accepted.
The respondents’ extent of FFS implementation was correlated to selected
social and motivational factors with the use of Point Biserial correlation analysis
to test for coefficiency. A 0.05 level of significance was used in all the analysis
made.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This portion of the study answers the following specific problems:
1. What is the profile of respondents?
2. What is the relationship between the motivating factors and the extent
of FFS implementation, and the reasons in implementing the FFS approach?
3. What is the extent of FFS implementation along adaptability,
appropriateness, relevance of the principles, features and characteristic of IPM –
FFS with respect to: a) Methodology; b) Duration of the Training; c) Number of
Participants; d) Time of Day; e) Number of Hours; f) Subject Matter; g) Sequence
of the Activities; h) Research Theme; i) Research Design; j) Field Monitoring
Techniques – Weekly AESA; k) Conduct of Insect/Disease Zoos; l) Conduct of
Field Day and Graduation; and m) Calculation of Incomes and Profits and the
perceived effects to income and profits as well as the application of IPM
technologies?
4. What is the relationship between the socio-economic factors and the
extent of FFS implementation?
5. What are the reasons of farmers in attending FFS sessions, motivations
in applying the lessons learned from the FFS training, and degree of application of
learning?
6. What is the degree of change in the FFS features and characteristics?
29
Profile of Respondents
Socio-Economic Profile
Sex, age and civil status of trainers. There were more female respondents
(58.49%) than males (Table 2). The female ages ranged from 35 to 61 years,
while the males ranged from 37 to 59 years old. More than 24 % of the male
respondents were in the age bracket of 41- 45 years old. This was followed by a
20.75 % age bracket of 46 – 50 years old. There were more middle aged FFS
trainers than the younger ones. For the civil status, there is only one single trainer
respondent.
In table 3, there were more female farmer respondents (54 %) than males
(46 %). Most of the farmers were in the 46 -50 age bracket (26.67 %), followed
by age ranging from 51 – 55 (23.33 %) and 41 – 45 (16.67%).
Comparing the age range of the two groups of respondents, Figure 5
shows a bell-shaped normal population distribution where most of the respondents
were of middle ages (41- 45 and 46 – 50 years old), with fewer younger ages (23
– 40 years old) and older respondents (56 – 70 years old) involved in the FFS
training and research activities.
30
Table 2. Age and sex of trainer respondents
AGE
FREQUENCY
TOTAL
PERCENT
BRACKET
FEMALE
MALE
30 – 35
2
0
2
3.77
36 – 40
3
5
8
15.09
41 – 45
6
7
13
24.53
46 – 50
7
4
11
20.75
51 – 55
7
4
11
20.75
56 – 60
5
2
7
13.21
61 – 65
1
0
1
1.89
Total
31
22
53
100.00
Percent
58.49
41.51
Table 3. Age and sex of farmer respondents
AGE
FREQUENCY
TOTAL
PERCENT
BRACKET
FEMALE
MALE
23 – 29
2
1
3
2.00
30 – 35
5
3
8
5.33
36 – 40
7
5
12
8.00
41 – 45
12
13
25
16.67
46 – 50
18
22
40
26.67
51 – 55
20
15
35
23.33
56 – 60
11
7
18
12.00
61 – 65
2
2
4
2.67
66 – 75
4
1
5
3.33
Total
81
69
150
100.00
Percent
54.00
46.00
31
30
26.67
25
24.53
23.33
Trainers
20.75
20.75
Farmers
20
t
16.67
e
r
c
e
n
15
15.09
P
13.21
12
10
8
5.33
5
2.67
3.33
3.77
2
1.89
0
0
0
23 - 29
30 - 35
36 - 40
41 - 45
46 - 50
51 - 55
56 - 60
61 - 65
66 - 75
Age Bracket
Figure 5. Relationship between the age brackets of trainers and farmer
respondents
Educational attainment. Figure 6 shows that 43 or 81% of the trainer
respondents finished bachelor’s degree while the other 10 or 19% had masters’
degree. None among the respondents had doctoral degrees.
All farmer respondents indicated they attended school (Figure 7). Fifty
two percent (52%) reached high school; 31% attended college level; and 17%
attended elementary education. This shows a high degree of education among the
farmer respondents.
Fields of specialization. Table 8 shows nine major groups of specialization
of trainer respondents, namely; crop science (agronomy and horticulture), with
32
PhD
0 (0%)
Elem
MS
Educ
10 (19%)
26
College
(17%)
46
(31%)
BS
High
43 (81%)
School
78
(52%)
Figure 6. Educational attainment
Figure 7. Educational attainment
of trainer respondents
of farmer respondents
Home
Soil Science
Mgt/Nutrition/Tec
Animal
8%
h
Science/Vet Med
8%
Forestry
6%
2%
Farm
Mechanization
Crop
2%
Protection(Entom/
Extension/Rural
Plt Patho)
Dev't
2%
8%
Crop
Science(Agro/Hort
Economics/Agribu
i)
siness
56%
8%
Figure 8. Field of specialization of respondents
56%; economics/agribusiness, extension/rural development, soil science, and
animal science/veterinary medicine, with 8% each, home management/home
33
technology/nutritionist with 6%; and farm mechanization, forestry, and crop
protection (entomology and plant pathology) with 2% each. The figure shows a
wide diversity of field of specialization working on IPM of various crops using
the farmer field school approach.
Positions of trainers in offices. The agriculture technologists comprise the
bulk of trainers (65%). The municipal agriculturists (8%) here were former
technologists promoted as municipal agriculturist (Figure 9). The higher positions
such as senior agriculturist, agriculturist l and ll are positions in the provincial
agriculture office. Normally, the provincial staff served as support staff to
municipal technicians in the conduct of FFS.
Municipal
Agric.
4 ( 8%)
Sr.
Agriculturist
Ag
1 (2%)
Technolo-
gist
35 (65%)
Agriculturist
1/11
13 (25%)
Figure 9. Current position of trainer respondents
34
Current designations of trainer respondents. Figure 10 shows that all the
respondents were designated as coordinators or report officers or focal persons in
the different banner programs and projects. Twenty three (46.4%) of the
respondents were rice coordinators; followed by high value commercial crops
(17%); corn and in rural organizations which include cooperatives, farmers
associations, rural improvement clubs and 4-H clubs. Some, they mentioned that
due to their designations, their time devoted to FFS has somehow been diluted.
Average savings and earnings from practicing IPM. On the average, the
estimated savings of farmers due to their application of the IPM technologies was
8
Others
3
Rural Org'n
1
Fisheries
2
Livestock
23
Rice
7
Corn
9
HVCC
0
5
10
15
20
25
No of Respondents
Figure 10. Current designation of trainer respondents
35
50% from their usual expense on cost of pesticide, fertilizer and labor with 54.97,
51.90 and 43.20% respectively as shown in Table 4. The highest saving was due
to the reduction in pesticides use with 44.97%. Farmers also realized an increase
of 16.13% in production, 16.61% increase in income and 15.49% increase in
profit. The increase in income and profit is attributed to the increase in production
and reduced inputs from pesticide and fertilizer. Though this result is not exactly
quantified, it surpassed the PhP500 cost saving reported by SEARCA, 1997
(Medina and Callo, 1997). As one group of corn farmers from Kalinga were one
in saying during the interview:
“Dinmakkel ti apit mi ta nagsukat kami ti barayti ti imula
mi metten. Tattan, saan kami nga ag-spray, tractor ti aglinis, e-
rotabet mi jay nag-anian min no malpas apit sunga malotlot idiay
metlang pagmulaan ket isu ti abono. Idi kadaanan pay ti
imulmula mi, ado ti peste, pooranmi mi ti nag-anian mi ken
magastoan kami ti aglinis ta mano-mano met. Tattan,, no adda
kwarta mi, igatang mi ti organic nga abono”.
(“Our production increased because we changed our local
varieties with new ones – referring to hybrid corn. Now, we don’t
spray, no manual weeding, instead we use tractor to weed and we
chop the stubbles using a tractor to be mixed into the soil after
harvest to decompose as fertilizers. When we had been using the
traditional varieties, there were lots of pests, we spray, do manual
labor for weeding, and we burn the stubbles. Now, when we have
money, we buy organic fertilizers”).
36
Table 4. Estimated average of savings and earnings of farmers from practicing
IPM
BENEFITS
AMOUNT/VOL (%)
1. Cost of pesticide inputs
54.97
2. Cost of fertilizer inputs
51.90
3. Cost of labor
43.20
4 Increase in production
16.19
5. Increase in income
16.68
6. Increase in profit
15.56
FFS Experiences
Commodities respondents were trained. Figure 11 shows the distribution
which commodities the respondents were trained. More than half (29) of the
trainers were trained in rice (54%); 16 (30.2 %) in vegetables, and eight (15%) in
corn. Of the farmer respondents, 66 (44%) were trained in rice; 44 (29.3%) in
corn; 35 (23.5%) in vegetables; three in fruits trees; one in cutflower; and one in
livestock.
There were no season long training courses conducted for other
commodities in the region, thus there were no trainer respondents other than rice,
corn and vegetables.
The presence of FFS in other commodities implies that the trainers trained
in FFS – IPM of vegetables were able to expand their FFSs to cutflowers,
livestock and to fruit production.
37
66
Trainers
Farmers
70
60
44
t
s
e
n
50
d
n
35
o
40
29
e
s
p
f
R
30
.
o
16
o
N
20
8
0
1
0
1
0
3
10
0
Vegetables
Rice
Corn
Cutflower Livestock
Fruits
Commodities
Figure 11. Types of commodity where respondents were trained
Type of IPM – FFS training courses attended by trainers. There were three
levels of training courses where trainers were capacitated as trainers of farmer
field schools on IPM of vegetable, rice and corn: such as training of specialist;
training of trainers; or short courses termed as crash courses. There were 39 who
graduated from the training of trainers, 28 of which graduated in FFS - IPM of
rice, 6 in vegetable and 5 in corn. A total of 11 graduated in training of specialist,
8 in FFS – IPM of vegetables, 1 in rice and 2 in corn. Only three respondents
graduated from a crash course in vegetable and corn (Figure 12).
38
28
Vegetable
Rice
Corn
30
25
20
15
8
6
5
10
1
2
2
1
5
0
TOT
TOS
Crash Course
Figure 12. Type of training attended by trainer respondents
Number of years and the number of FFS each trainer conducted. More
than 39% or 21 of the respondents conducted FFSs in one to three years since
they graduated as trainers. Surprisingly, 37.74% or 20 of the respondents
conducted FFS lasting for seven to ten years. Three of the respondents also have
reached 13 to 16 years conducting farmer field school (Table 5).
Of the 53 respondents for the number of FFS they conducted, majority of
them (39.62%) conducted about six to ten farmer field schools, 32.08% conducted
about one to five FFS. Very few of the respondents conducted more than ten
farmer field schools (Table 6). It should be noted, however, that the conduct of
FFS is a team activity that may have composed of two or three trainers per FFS.
39
Table 5. Number of years each trainer conducted FFS
NO. OF YEARS
FREQUENCY
PERCENT
(BRACKET)
(N = 53)
01 – 03
21
39.62
04 – 06
8
15.09
07 – 10
20
37.74
11 – 12
1
1.89
13 – 16
3
5.66
Table 6. Number of FFS conducted by individual trainer
NUMBER OF FFS
FREQUENCY
PERCENT
(BRACKET)
(N =53)
01 – 05
17
32.08
06 – 10
21
39.62
11 – 15
3
5.66
16 – 20
1
1.89
21 – 25
3
5.66
26 – 30
4
7.55
31 – 35
2
3.77
36 – 40
0
0.00
41 – 45
1
1.89
46 – 50
1
1.89
Number of respondents graduated per year. The total number of
respondents who graduated per year is shown in Figure 13. Each year, since the
introduction of FFS – IPM in 1993, there had been farmer graduate respondents
with the highest number in 1998 with 22 and only one respondent in 1993 and
40
25
No of Farmers Respondents
22
No of Trainer Respondents
20
t
s
16
e
n
15
15
15
d
n
o
13
13
e
s
p
11
11
f
R
10
9
.
o
8
8
o
7
7
7
N
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
2
2
1
1
0
93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
Year Graduated
Figure 13. Number of respondents graduated per year
in 1994. There are no trainer respondents between 1998 to 1999 because there
were no season long training courses conducted. Instead, the existing trainers
were conducting FFSs. The season long training of trainers also stopped in 2003,
thus there were no trainer respondents after 2003.
Non season long FFS – IPM training courses attended by trainers. Figures
14 and 15 show the crash course training activities were short term activities
attended by trainers of FFS and the number of other related courses attended.
These training courses were categorized according to commodities to focus
topics. More than 50% of the respondents attended rice FFS – IPM training
courses; then corn (24%); and vegetables with 20%. This is so because there are
more trained individuals in rice than in corn and vegetables as shown in Figure
12.
41
5,
11
(9%)
13
(24%)
( 25%)
11,
(21%)
26
(56%)
9
24
(20%)
(45%)
No training
1 - 2
Vegetable
Rice
Corn
3 - 4
5 and above
Figure 14. Commodity FFS – IPM Figure 15. Number of other FFS –
crash courses attended
IPM related courses attended
Though all respondents attended the crash courses, not all of them had the
chance of attending any other FFS related courses. There were 13 (25%)
respondents who had no training at all. Forty five percent (45%) attended 1 – 2
trainings while nine percent had five and above training courses.
Cumulative attendance in FFS – IPM related trainings. The cumulative
attendance of trainers in FFS – IPM crash courses, other related courses,
consultative workshops and involvement as facilitator in FFS – IPM workshops is
shown in Figure 16. The trainers of Ifugao and Kalinga had the highest
involvements in FFS –IPM related trainings followed by Benguet and Mt.
Province. The trainers of Abra and Apayao had lesser participation in FFS – IPM
related trainings and workshops. Many of the FFS trained agriculturists from
Abra, Apayao and Mt. Province said, that their local executives did not allow
42
1
2
2
1
0
0
3
2
Mt. Prov
= 65
2
2
3
2
0
3
5
1
Kalinga
= 99
1
2
3
3
9
3
4
0
Ifugao
= 106
9
1
2
1
9
9
0
Benguet
= 67
8
7
7
4
Apayao
= 26
1
1
6
6
4
Abra
= 27
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Crash Course
FFS Related Trng
Consultative Wshops
Trng/Wshops Facilitated
Figure 16. Cumulative attendance in FFS – IPM related training activities
them to attend to the trainings especially when held outside their provinces for the
alleged reason that they did not have funds for traveling.
Relationship of Motivations/Goals
of Trainers in Implementing
Farmer Field Schools
This section presents the relationship of motivations/goals and reasons of
the trainers in conducting farmer field school as an approach in training and
research in the promotion of Integrated Pest Management in the Cordillera region.
43
Motivations/Goals of Trainers in
Implementing FFS
Table 7 shows the motivations and goals of trainers in implementing IPM
through FFS. Significant variations exist among the responses of the trainers. The
null hypothesis therefore is rejected. This corroborates what Anon (1995)
identified that the FFS - IPM technology promotion is a holistic approach that is
equally revolving around economic, health, environment, continuing education
and institutional support factors. It holds true in the study as trainers were
motivated to implement FFS – IPM in this holistic approach. Efforts had been
made to integrate agriculture and human health applying the principles of IPM to
people (Pedon, 1998).
The leading motivation/goal of agricultural extension workers in
implementing FFS-IPM is for farmers to “produce safer food (81.1%)”. This
finding follows the “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs” with health or well
being as the foundation of need before pursuing to higher level of self fulfillment
(Smeltzer and Bare, 2004). This further shows that the demand for “safer food” in
the Cordillera Region is currently recognized.
The second motivation for implementing FFS-IPM is to restore and
preserve beneficial organisms (77.4%). This is in parallel with the demand for
“safer food,” and is a requirement for a successful IPM program.
The third motivation is for farmers to reduce use of chemical inputs
(75.5%); and the fourth is to enhance biodiversity (62.3%). Both are equally
44
Table 7. Motivations/goals of trainers in implementing FFS – IPM
FREQUENCY
MOTIVATION/GOALS
PERCENT
RANK
(N=53)
Economic Benefits
Farmers to reduce chemical inputs
40
75.5
3
Higher income and profit of
32
60.4
5
farmers
Pesticide free produce commands
24
45.3
8
better price
Health Benefits
Safer food produced by farmers
43
81.1
1
Environmental Benefits
Restore and preserve beneficial
41
77.4
2
organisms
Enhance biodiversity
33
62.3
4
Continuing Education for Farmers
Regular encounter with farmers in
28
52.8
6.5
the communities
Institutional Support
Presence of strong support from
28
52.8
6.5
local executives
Incentives from the program
21
39.6
9
(money, scholarships, trainings,
others)
Qc = 57.075**
Sig. = 0.000
important and vital means in the production of safer food. To produce safer food,
the farmer has to reduce use of poisonous chemicals, and instead, considers the
use of beneficial organisms to hold insect pests and noxious pathogens in check
45
(Driesche & Bellones, 1996). In preserving beneficial organisms, farmers, are in
essence, enhancing biodiversity.
As the need and demand for safer food becomes more important, the seeds
of change for the production of safer food were already sown in FFS-IPM and
will soon grow. Trainers feel satisfaction and delighted to hear feedback from
farmer graduates. One farmer graduate from Mt. Data, Bauko (Batch 1993)
recounted:
“Ad-ado di naadal sin nan eskwelaan mi sin FFS on IPM.
No manpay adi ma-i-apply amin naadal si esa ay panamulaan,
ado di nemnemnemen no sino di mayat ay amagen sin
sumarsarruno ay panaggargardenan ta maksayan di gasto ya
manbomba si pesticide”.
(“We learned a lot of ideas and concepts in crop
production during the FFS training and research on IPM.
Though we can not apply everything we learned in one cropping
period, there are a lot to think of, on what is appropriate to do in
the following planting seasons to reduce cost and avoid spraying
pesticide”).
The trainers further implemented FFS-IPM, not only because it is a
mandate but it is strongly supported by some local executives (52.8%). In
addition, FFS-IPM provides a venue for regular continuing positive bonding of
trainers and farmers in the communities with 52.8%.
Lastly, the provision of incentives whether cash or in kind from the
program was the least motivational factor (39%) in implementing FFS.
46
Reasons of Trainers in Implementing the FFS
The reasons of trainers in implementing the FFS on IPM training and
research is shown in Table 8. Significant differences in the responses of the
trainers were observed.
The foremost reason of the trainers to implement FFS on IPM is to learn
and share knowledge and skills with farmers (84.9%). This illustrates that the
methodology of knowledge facilitation and participatory knowledge sharing is
still intact among the trainers. This finding conforms with the fundamental
principles in participatory training and research (Palengleng, 2008) that
“everybody’s view counts”; “everyone is different”, and “everyone perceives
different realities and therefore offers important contributions to a process. The
different views and experiences of people can complement each other. Thus,
mutual satisfaction is attained during the training.
Ranked as second reason, is to train farmers in IPM through research with
52.8%. This shows that the other core value of FFS, that of experiential learning,
is still apparent and the urge to do it is still strong.
The third reason with 30.2% of the trained agricultural extension workers
said that they implemented FFS to respond to office mandate. A few (5.7%) cited
that they would like to experience and evaluate own capability as FFS trainer.
This implies that some trainers are positively challenged to determine their
competence as trainers of FFS.
47
Table 8. Reasons of trainers in implementing the FFS
FREQUEN-
REASONS
PERCENT
RANK
CY
1. Respond to office mandate
16
30.2
3
2. Test IPM technologies through FFS
14
26.2
4
3. Train farmers in IPM through
28
52.8
2
research
4. Experience and evaluate own
3
5.7
5
capability as FFS trainer
5. Learn and share knowledge and
45
84.9
1
skills with farmers
Qc = 69.108**
Sig. = 0.000
Relationships Between Motivational Factors and Extent of
FFS – IPM Features and Characteristics’ Implementation
Among the five major motivational factors of trainers, higher income and
profit of farmers and enhancement of biodiversity had significant relationship
with the adaptability, and safer food produced by the farmers with the relevance
of the features and characteristics of FFS – IPM (Table 9). The more motivated
the trainer to effect higher income and profit of farmers, the lower is their
adaptability of the FFS – IPM features and characteristics. This is consistent with
the results in Table 13 that the trainers perceived degree of effect of the FFS on
the income and profit of farmers and the adoption of IPM are moderate. This
finding corroborates the findings of Ali (1997) that the adequacy of the FFS
48
Table 9. Relationships between motivational factors of and extent of the FFS –
IPM features and characteristics implementation
EXTENT OF THE FFS – IPM
FEATURES AND CHARACTERISTICS
MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS
IMPLEMENTATION
Adaptability
Appropria-
Relevance
teness
Economic Benefits
Farmers to reduce chemical
-0.03
0.05
-0.12
inputs
Higher income and profit of
-0.33*
0.08
-0.09
farmers
Health Benefits
Safer food produced by farmers
-0.09
-0.06
0.33*
Environmental Benefits
Restore and preserve beneficial
-0.26
-0.07
-0.08
organisms
Enhance biodiversity
0.37**
0.24
-0.26
Continuing Education for Farmers
Regular encounter with farmers
0.11
-0.15
-0.23
in the communities
r
= ±0 2
. 7 r
= 0
± .35
0
. 5
0
. 1
** - highly significant
scope/coverage, training time and funds ranged from adequate to fairly adequate.
This finding corroborates the findings in Table 18 where five (38%) items of the
features and characteristics were modified to be able to address other issues to
increase income such as the shift to organic farming as subject matter and
increase the duration of training (Table 19) longer interval of sessions. The more
motivated the trainer to effect the enhancement of biodiversity, the higher is their
49
adaptability of the FFS – IPM features and characteristics. The more motivated
the trainers to effect the production of safe food by the farmers, the higher they
perceived the features and characteristics of FFS – IPM relevant.
In some cases, there were obvious trade-offs between the adaptability of
features and characteristics and the weak technical competence or no support
from the mother agency or institutions relatively involved in the program, and
ensuring the technical quality of FFS. Some FFS trainers repeatedly said:
“Saan kayo met gamin nga ag-monitor (referring to the
DA-regional office) ta kitan yo ti ar-aramiden mi nga ag-FFS”.
(“You in the DA, don’t come to monitor to see what we
are doing in FFS”).
The essence of motivation according to Van der Wiele thus applies here.
In the adoption of technologies, Van der Wiele (2002) posits that the trainers and
farmers may or may not necessarily have technical questions or problems but they
merely wanted encouragement through periodic follow up farm visits and
mutually agreeable level of technical assistance. The provision of social support
ensures the adoption and continuance of agricultural practices and also alleviates
the “dependency syndrome”.
Moreover, the finding corroborates the statement in Employer-
Employee.com. (2001) as cited by Alupias (2002), that the employees’ natural
motivation relies on the fact that all people have human desires for achievement
50
and for control and power over their work. In addition they have desires for
ownership, recognition and meaning of their work.
Extent of Implementation of the Farmer Field School
Features and Characteristics
There were 13 major features and characteristics of FFS that were
independently evaluated by the respondents for their adaptability, appropriateness
and relevance.
Degree of Adaptability of FFS
Features and Characteristics
As shown in Table 10, five features and characteristics of FFS-IPM
namely: the methodology; time of the day; subject matter; research theme; and
field monitoring had significant differences among the provinces with mean
ratings ranging from 2.43 to 2.60 which are highly adaptable.
There is a high adaptability in the methodology, subject matter, research
theme and field monitoring were all obtained from Benguet, Ifugao and Kalinga,
while moderate adaptabilities were mostly noted from Abra, Apayao and Mt.
Province. The reason for higher adaptability can be attributed to the frequency of
attendance to training courses. There were more respondents from Benguet,
Ifugao and Kalinga who attended more FFS – IPM related trainings such as
refresher courses, workshops and conferences than respondents from Abra,
Apayao and Mt. Province.
5
1
51
Table 10. Degree of adaptability of the FFS features and characteristics
FEATURES AND
DEGREE OF ADAPTABILITY
F-
CHARACTERISTICS
Mt.
MEAN
DE
SIG
Abra
Apayao Benguet
Ifugao
Kalinga
VALUE
Prov
1. Methodology
2.14
2.33
2.67
2.40
2.83
2.33
2.49
H
2.74**
0.030
2. Duration
2.29
2.17
2.44
2.50
2.83
2.33
2.47
H
1.90ns
0.112
3. Number of participants
2.14
2.33
2.22
2.20
2.75
2.11
2.32
M
1.56ns
0.191
4. Time of day
2.43
2.33
2.33
2.10
2.75
1.89
2.30
M
2.91**
0.023
5. Number of hours
2.29
2.33
2.00
2.40
2.75
2.33
2.38
M
1.64ns
0.168
6. Subject matter
2.28
2.17
3.00
2.60
2.67
2.67
2.60
H
2.70**
0.023
7. Sequence of activities
2.14
2.67
2.11
2.60
2.75
2.56
2.49
H
2.22ns
0.068
8. Research theme: IPM
2.00
2.33
2.56
2.60
2.75
2.11
2.43
H
3.33**
0.012
9. Research design
2.29
2.50
2.44
2.50
2.75
2.44
2.51
H
0.65ns
0.660
10. Field monitoring (AESA)
2.14
2.17
2.67
2.60
2.75
2.78
2.57
H
2.47**
0.046
11. Conduct of insect/ disease
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.08
1.44
1.92
M
1.26ns
0.298
zoos
12. Conduct of field day/ and
2.29
2.33
2.67
2.70
2.67
2.33
2.53
H
0.90ns
0.489
graduation
13. Research Analysis
2.14
2.50
2.22
2.50
2.75
2.44
2.45
H
1.64ns
0.168
Mean
2.2
2.32
2.41
2.44
2.7
2.3
2.34
M
DE
M
M
H
H
H
M
** - significant
ns – not significant
Legend:
1.0 - 1.69 = weak (W)
1.7 - 2.39 = moderate (M)
2.4 - 3.00 = high (H)
52
The time of day which normally runs from 8:00 in the morning till 12:00
noon was rated moderately adaptable. In IPM, morning is set for FFS sessions
because it is this time when majority of the arthropods, some disease symptoms
including the vigor of the plants are in their active state, thus the best time to
monitor. The provinces of Abra and Kalinga followed the stipulated time of day,
though they stated that the time of day was too long. On the other hand, trainers
from Apayao, Benguet, Ifugao, and Mt Province found the time too short. In
Benguet and Mt. Province, it was found that farmers can stay longer in sessions.
Farmers were willing to contribute for lunch than going home hungry after a four-
hour session. This can be also attributed to the topography and distance of the
place they come from, to the FFS site. The conduct of regular “agro-ecosystem
analysis” is rated highly adaptable by majority of the trainers except trainers from
Abra and Apayao who rated with moderate adaptability.
The moderate adaptability of the features and characteristics of FFS/IPM
in Mt. Province can be attributed to the trainers’ experiences in shifting subject
matters from one commodity to another. The trainers in Mt. Province
implemented FFS in various commodities such as rice, vegetables, fruits, agro-
forestry, child nutrition, livestock and organic farming.
Among the provinces of CAR, Abra was the latest to implement FFS,
starting their training of trainers in 1999. However, Abra trainers were involved in
the Palayaman, a program using the FFS process. Similar with the province of
53
Apayao, the trainers’ experiences with PhilRice conducting the Palayamanan and
PalayCheck Models may have influenced their FFS implementation.
Degree of Appropriateness of FFS
Features and Characteristics
The degree of appropriateness significantly differed in terms of subject
matter and the conduct of agro-ecosystem analysis with 2.60 and 2.47 degrees of
appropriateness, respectively (Table 11). The trainers from the provinces of
Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga and Mt. Province found the subject matter and the
conduct of AESA highly appropriate while the trainers from the provinces of
Abra and Apayao found them as moderately appropriate. Like the adaptability
rating, the exposure of the trainers from Abra and Apayao in the Palayamanan and
Palay Check program influenced the responses of trainers about these programs
running at same time.
Across provinces, majority of the features and characteristics of FFS were
highly appropriate except the number of participants, time of day, number of
hours and conduct of insect/disease zoo that were rated moderately appropriate.
Results also show that the trainers from the provinces of Benguet, Ifugao,
Kalinga and Mt. Province regarded the features and characteristics as highly
appropriate. On the other hand, trainers from Abra and Apayao indicated that the
features and characteristics of FFS/IPM were moderately appropriate.
54
54
Table 11. Degree of appropriateness of the FFS features and characteristics
DEGREE OF APPROPRIATENESS
FEATURES AND
F-
MEAN
DE
SIG
CHARACTERISTICS
Abra
Apayao
Benguet
Ifugao
Kalinga
Mt.
VALUE
Prov.
1. Methodology
2.43
2.00
2.78
2.60
2.67
2.67
2.57
HA
2.04ns
0.090
2. Duration
2.57
2.00
2.67
2.60
2.75
2.56
2.57
HA
1.38ns
0.249
3. Number of participants
2.29
2.17
2.44
2.30
2.58
2.11
2.34
MA
0.69ns
0.633
4. Time of day
2.14
2.17
2.33
2.50
2.58
2.33
2.38
MA
0.84ns
0.530
5. Number of hours
2.14
2.17
2.44
2.40
2.58
2.22
2.36
MA
0.89ns
0.494
6. Subject matter
2.29
2.17
3.00
2.60
2.67
2.67
2.60
HA
2.78**
0.028
7. Sequence of activities
2.43
2.17
2.56
2.70
2.67
2.78
2.58
HA
1.11ns
0.370
8. Research theme: IPM
2.43
2.17
2.67
2.40
2.58
2.33
2.45
HA
0.67ns
0.650
9. Research design
2.29
2.33
2.67
2.40
2.50
2.44
2.45
HA
0.38ns
0.858
10. Field monitoring (AESA)
2.14
2.17
2.67
2.60
2.75
2.78
2.57
HA
2.47**
0.046
11. Conduct of insect/ disease
2.14
1.83
2.33
2.20
2.08
1.67
2.06
MA
1.22ns
0.315
zoos
12. Conduct of field day/ and
2.29
2.17
2.89
2.70
2.58
2.44
2.55
HA
1.79ns
0.133
graduation
13. Research data analysis
2.29
2.17
2.44
2.50
2.58
2.67
2.47
HA
0.77ns
0.574
Mean
2.30
2.13
2.61
2.50
2.58
2.44
2.46
HA
DE
MA
MA
HA
HA
HA
HA
** - significant
ns – not significant
Legend:
1.0 - 1.69 = not appropriate
1.7 - 2.39 = moderately appropriate
2.4 - 3.00 = highly appropriate
55
Degree of Relevance of FFS Features
and Characteristics for the Future
FFS Implementation
The degree of relevance of the features and characteristics of FFS - IPM is
high. However, differences among trainers in the six provinces are not significant
(Table 12). The hypothesis therefore that there is no significant difference in the
relevance of the principles, features and characteristics of the FFS – IPM is
accepted. This finding implies that whether the ratings are high or moderate, there
are no differences between and among the provinces.
The moderate relevant ratings obtained in the number of participants, time
of the day, number of hours, and the conduct of insect/disease zoos suggests
serious evaluation for efficient and effective FFS program implementation.
Comparing the overall means of provinces, the provinces of Apayao,
Benguet, Ifugao and Kalinga showed high relevance of the features and
characteristics while Abra and Mt. Province had moderate relevance.
56
56
Table 12. Degree of relevance of the FFS features and characteristics for future implementation
DEGREE OF RELEVANCE
FEATURES AND
F-
MEAN
DE
SIG
CHARACTERISTICS
Mt.
Abra
Apayao Benguet
Ifugao
Kalinga
VALUE
Prov.
1. Methodology
2.57
2.50
2.67
2.40
2.75
2.56
2.58
HR
0.46 ns
0.806
2. Duration
2.57
2.33
2.67
2.40
2.75
2.56
2.57
HR
0.65 ns
0.664
3. Number of participants
2.57
2.33
2.33
2.20
2.67
1.89
2.34
MR
1.71 ns
0.150
4. Time of day
2.14
2.33
2.33
2.40
2.67
2.22
2.38
MR
0.92 ns
0.478
5. Number of hours
2.14
2.33
2.11
2.40
2.58
2.22
2.32
MR
0.84 ns
0.531
6. Subject matter/focus topic
2.43
2.33
2.33
2.60
2.67
2.56
2.51
HR
0.69 ns
0.632
7. Sequence of activities
2.57
2.50
2.56
2.70
2.50
2.33
2.53
HR
0.38 ns
0.859
8. Research theme: IPM
2.57
2.33
2.67
2.50
2.42
2.33
2.47
HR
0.56 ns
0.730
9. Research design
2.29
2.67
2.44
2.40
2.47
2.56
2.45
HR
0.39 ns
0.850
10. Field monitoring (AESA)
2.29
2.50
2.56
2.50
2.67
2.75
2.57
HR
0.68 ns
0.642
11. Conduct insect/disease zoos
2.00
2.33
2.22
2.40
2.17
1.67
2.13
MR
1.40 ns
0.242
12. Conduct of field day/ and
2.29
2.50
2.67
2.50
2.83
2.44
2.57
HR
1.41 ns
0.237
graduation
13. Research data analysis
2.29
2.50
2.89
2.50
2.67
2.67
2.60
HR
1.23ns
0.311
Mean
2.36
2.42
2.50
2.45
2.60
2.37
2.46
HR
DE
MR
HR
HR
HR
HR
MR
** - significant
ns – not significant
Legend:
1.0 - 1.69 = not relevant (NR)
1.7 - 2.39 = moderately relevant (MR)
2.4 - 3.00 = highly relevant (HR)
57
Perceived Degree of Effect of FFS on the
Income and Profit and Adoption of IPM
Table 13 shows the perceived degree of effect of FFS-IPM on the income
- profit and adoption of IPM. The overall average shows a moderate degree of
effect of FFS from the different provinces of CAR with mean ratings of 2.37 and
2.36, respectively.
It was noted that the degree of effect of FFS on income and profit was
strong in the provinces of Ifugao, Kalinga and Mt. Province, while the trainers
from the provinces of Abra, Apayao and Benguet perceived the effects of FFS-
IPM on the income and profit of their farmers as moderate.
A moderate degree of adoption of IPM was noted significantly different
among the provinces. The provinces with high degree of effect of FFS on the
income and profit, also had a high degree of IPM adoption. The provinces with
moderate degree of effect of the FFS-IPM on income and profit, had moderate
degree of IPM adoption. When trainers were asked how many percent of their
farmer graduates adopted their learning, majority claimed that about 70% are
applied what they learned. The most evident observed technology that farmers
adopted was their being more selective in planting materials and varieties. This
implies that farmers today consider and continue to seek for quality planting
materials and excellent varieties that can give them better income and profit.
58
58
Table 13. Perceived degree of effect of the FFS on the income - profit, and application of IPM technologies
PERCEIVED DEGREE OF EFFECT OF THE FFS
F-
PARAMETERS
MEAN
DE
SIG
VALUE
Abra
Apayao Benguet
Ifugao
Kalinga
Mt.
Prov.
Income and profit
2.14
2.17
2.11
2.50
2.75
2.56
2.37
MS
3.26**
0.013
Adoption of IPM
2.14
2.17
2.11
2.40
2.75
2.56
2.36
MS
3.21**
0.014
** - significant
ns – not significant
Legend:
1.0 - 1.69 = weak
1.7 - 2.39 = moderately strong
2.4 - 3.00 = very strong
59
Relationship Between Socio-Economic Factors of
Trainers and Extent of FFS – IPM Features
and Characteristics Implementation
This section presents the socio-economic factors of trainers along sex,
experiences on FFS and the short courses attended in relation to FFS-IPM features
and characteristics implementation with respect to adaptability, appropriateness
and relevance.
A significant relationship between the sex and adaptability of the features
and characteristics FFS - IPM exists (Table 14). In Table 2, there are 31 females
and 22 male respondents. The male respondents had lower perceived adaptability
of the features and characteristics of FFS – IPM than females. The hypothesis
therefore is rejected. This result disagrees with the findings of Domanog (2007)
that gender, civil status and educational attainment do not affect the level of job
performance of teachers.
Significant negative relationships exist between the trainers attendance in
Season Long Training FFS – IPM training on vegetables and rice and the
appropriateness of the features and characteristics of FFS – IPM. The more
attendance in season long training FFS – IPM on vegetables and rice, the lesser
appropriate are the features and characteristics of the FFS – IPM. The more
attendance to season long training in vegetables, the less relevant are the features
and characteristics of the FFS – IPM.
60
Table 14. Relationship between socio-economic factors and extent of FFS – IPM
features and characteristics implementation
EXTENT OF FFS -IPM FEATURES
AND CHARACTERISTICS
SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS
IMPLEMENTATION
Adaptability
Appropria-
Relevance
teness
Socio-Economic
Sex
-0.32*
-0.25
-0.08
Age
-0.04
-0.09
-0.11
Educational Attainment
-0.14
-0.11
-0.10
Experiences on FFS
a. Season Long FFS – IPM
Training Attended:
Vegetable
-0.09
-0.35**
-0.28*
Rice
-0.05
-0.35**
-0.24
Corn
-0.09
-0.21
-0.15
b. Short Courses Attended:
Crash/Refresher Courses
-0.17
-0.02
-0.05
Other Related Training
-0.01
-0.15
0.19
Related Consultation/
-0.21
-0.31*
-0.20
Workshops
r
= ±0 2
. 7 r
= 0
± .35
0
. 5
0
. 1
** - highly significant
There exist significant relationship between the FFS – IPM related
consultation workshops attended and the appropriateness of the features and
characteristics of FFS – IPM. The more attendance of trainers in consultation
workshops, the lesser is the perceived appropriateness of the features and
characteristics of FFS – IPM.
61
Even though, the trainers attended more FFS – IPM season long training
on vegetables and rice and related consultation workshops, trainers still perceived
that the features and characteristics of FFS - IPM were not appropriate and
relevant. These results are opposite of what may normally be expected. It appears
that the agriculture technicians may have reached a stage of being bored with
more of the same problems to solve, and with the same solutions addressing the
complexities of implementing FFS. This includes the appropriate support from the
local executives; and the availability of technical information and support needed
to address what the farmers need. FFS is attractive where there is always new
information, and new lesson to be learned and shared. Many of the trainers
claimed that the plans they made after training workshops were not implemented
because they did not have enough support from their executives.
The relationship between training and quality management established by
Gee and Nystrom thus applies here. Gee and Nystrom (1999) as cited by Cooney
et al. (2002) found that different levels of training are strategically related to
different levels of quality management practices. Limited and one-off training
program were associated with quality by inspection whilst comprehensive training
was associated with the adoption of full total quality management program.
Furthermore, Cooney et al. (2002) found that employee training is seemingly
more effective, when it is closely combined with comprehensive quality
management practices. The close alignment of the training with the development
62
of skills and competencies that are strategically important to the business seems to
enhance the value of the training dollar. The results may indicate that the
workshops attended lack quality management or the trainer may also lack quality
management in the implementation of FFS – IPM training.
The finding supports the finding of Gumpeng (2008) that younger age,
male, and with more number of seminars, trainings or workshops attended
perceived higher availability of computer-based technologies.
Reasons of Farmers in Attending
the FFS Regular Sessions
The reasons why the farmers attended the FFS/IPM program were
determined (Table 15). A significant difference in the responses of farmers on
why they attended regular FFS sessions is indicated by the computed Q - value.
The primary reason of farmers attending the FFS was due to their expectations to
learn new agricultural technologies from the training with 95.3%. This implies
that there is a need for knowledge, and for new or advanced technology, to
continually improve their lives. The farmers are experienced agriculturists.
Nevertheless, they were not contented with doing “more of the same” things.
An indication that the trainers effectively conducted their ground work
prior to the conduct of the FFS is the second reason of farmers in attending the
program. Majority of the farmers (58.7%) were convinced with the objectives of
the training, and that something worthy and valuable will result from the training.
63
Table 15. Reasons of farmer in attending the FFS regular sessions
FREQUEN-
REASONS
PERCENT
RANK
CY
1. Cannot refuse trainers who invited
13
8.7
7
them to join, They know her/him
well, and he/she is a friend
2. Influenced by neighbors who are
37
24.7
4.5
attending the training
3. Persuaded by the presence of
21
14.0
6
friends in the training
4. Cannot refuse the local
10
6.7
8
officials/leaders who invited them
to attend
5. Expected to learn new things from
144
96.0
1
the training
6. Expected to get support or material
68
45.3
3
things after the training
7. Convinced with the objectives of
88
58.7
2
the training
8. An inspiration to others
37
24.7
4.5
Qc = 455.77**
Sig. = 0.000
In most training activities, especially those conducted by private
agricultural companies, “give always” and “give aways” are used to attract
farmers to attend. And a good number (45.3%) of farmers who attended the FFS
training expected the same. Farmers expected to also get material support such as
64
T-shirts, caps, samples, etc. after the training program. These are small things, but
they somehow show a sense of goodwill and camaraderie with the farmers.
Motivations/Goals of Farmers in Applying the
Knowledge and Skills Gained from FFS
To gauge the degree of IPM technology adaptation from FFS, and the
motivations farmers have in applying the knowledge and skills they gained from
FFS training in their farming activities are presented in Table 16. The table shows
that there is a significant difference among the responses of farmers hence, the
null hypothesis is rejected. This implies that the motivations of farmers in
applying what they learned from the FFS training and research significantly vary
from each other.
While the trainers were firstly motivated to train farmers to produce “safer
food,” the most common motivation of farmers was the possibility for higher
income and profit when practicing IPM (83.3%). Trainers can afford to cite
“intangible” benefits such as “safe food” because they are consumers of farmers’
produce. The farmers, on the other hand, are more practical and prefer economic
and tangible benefits that can accrue to them. For farmers, the bottom line is still
income and profit.
65
Table 16. Motivations/goals of farmers in applying the knowledge and skills
gained from FFS
MOTIVATIONS/GOALS
FEQUENCY PERCENT RANK
1. Reduced pesticide cost and usage
103
68.7
3
2. Reduced fertilizer cost and usage
100
66.7
4
3. Higher income and profit
125
83.3
1
4. Higher yield
98
65.3
5
5. Safer food produced
106
70.7
2
6. Restoration and preservation of
70
46.7
6.5
beneficial organisms
7. Cleaner environment
70
46.7
6.5
Qc = 77.624**
Sig. = 0.000
This result corroborates the findings of Claveria et al. (2009) that the FFS
graduates of sweetpotato production in Balutu, Concepcion, Tarlac were
motivated to sustain the application of IPM techniques they learned from the FFS
training. The application of the learning ensured their high incomes and profits.
As a result of the FFS-IPM training, the farmer graduates served as watchdogs to
their own group in applying their lessons. This is to avoid the spread of the virus
disease which greatly reduces expected yields, income and profit. The FFS
graduates were also motivated to form a cooperative to provide Concepcion
farmers with clean, virus-free planting materials and to continuously apply what
66
was learned in the FFS in order to maintain a sustainable source and supply of
virus-free sweet potato planting materials. The virus-free cuttings commanded a
higher price than the ordinary planting materials.
The second reason why farmers practice lessons learned in IPM is the
production of safer food (70.7%). This shows that after income and profit, farmers
are also concerned with the quality of their produce, that it be safer to eat.
Farmers also have developed social consciousness. Wanawan (2005) found out
that organic producers in Benguet were one in saying that they shifted to organic
farming not only for reduced cash inputs, better profit, there family’s health but
also as their social responsibility.
In line with producing safer food, farmers also opted for reduced pesticide
cost and usage (68.7%), and for reduced fertilizer cost and usage (66.7%). These
identified needs and wants should be part of scaled-up versions of the FFS on
IPM in the future. Additional reasons cited by farmers in practicing lessons
learned from FFS-IPM were more intangibles such as “higher yield” with 65.3%,
and lastly the “restoration and preservation of beneficial organisms”, and “cleaner
environment” with 46.7%.
The findings are in agreement with what Pontius et al. (2002) stated that
in Indonesia, some farmers are primarily motivated by the reduced costs and
reduced production risk obtained through application of ecological principles to
crop management. Some are intellectually stimulated by the subject matter and
67
excited by the experience of designing and carrying out their own experiments.
For others, the main attraction is group interaction, discussions and debates that
are important in every FFS. The most striking confirmation of this enthusiasm has
been the spontaneous appearance of farmer-to-farmer FFSs, in which field school
graduates begin to organize season-long FFSs for other local farmers.
Degree of Application of Knowledge and
Skills Gained During the FFS
This section presents the extent of application of knowledge and skills
learned during the FFS that focused on: the conduct of regular field monitoring,
considering pesticide as the last resort to control pests, the use of proper amount
of fertilizers at the right time, practicing crop sanitation at all times, checking for
beneficial and harmful organisms in the farm regularly, assessing crop damages
regularly, determining income, profit and yield increases, conducting own
researches, and maintaining farm recording.
Table 17 shows that almost all the knowledge and skills gained from the
FFS-IPM identified in the study differ significantly among the farmers of CAR
except on farm recording that is found not significant. Farmers first applied the
knowledge and skills they gained from the FFS then later they adopted these to
their routine farming activities. The numerical values ranging from 1.93 to 2.01
show a moderate application of the knowledge and skills gained from the FFS –
IPM training and research activities.
68
68
Table 17. Degree of application of knowledge and skills gained from the FFS
DEGREE OF APPLICATION
F-
KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS
Mt.
DE
SIG
Abra
Apayao
Benguet
Ifugao
Kalinga
MEAN
VALUE
Prov
1.
Conduct regular field
monitoring
1.75
2.40
1.87
1.77
2.46
1.55
1.99
M
14.40**
0.000
2.
Consider pesticide as the
1.25
2.05
1.74
1.31
2.57
1.82
1.83
M
27.49**
0.000
last resort to control pests
3.
Use proper amount of
1.62
2.15
1.74
1.65
2.57
1.73
1.99
M
16.49**
0.000
fertilizers at the right time
4.
Practice crop sanitation all
1.62
2.20
1.74
1.62
2.40
1.91
1.94
M
12.70**
0.000
the time
5.
Check presence of
1.96
2.15
1.78
1.65
2.23
1.59
1.91
M
7.11**
0.000
beneficial organisms
regularly
6.
Check regularly presence
2.00
2.20
1.87
1.58
2.31
1.55
1.94
M
10.32**
0.000
of harmful organisms
7.
Assess regularly crop
1.87
2.15
1.91
1.88
2.40
1.68
2.01
M
7.56**
0.000
damages
8.
Compute income/profit,
1.54
2.15
1.70
1.65
2.20
1.68
1.84
M
6.64**
0.001
and yield increases
9.
Conduct own researches
1.62
1.90
1.57
1.27
1.91
1.45
1.63
M
4.17ns
0.086
10. Do farm recording
1.79
2.05
1.65
1.62
1.75
1.55
1.72
M
1.97**
0.001
Mean
1.72
2.14
1.73
1.60
2.28
1.65
1.90
M
** - significant
ns – not significant
Legend: 1.0 - 1.69 = weak 1.7 - 2.39 = moderate
2.4 - 3.00 = high
69
Results also show that Kalinga farmers had high application of their
knowledge and skills particularly on the aspects of regular conduct of AESA;
considering pesticide as the last resort to pest control; use of the right amount of
fertilizer; practice of field sanitation; and regularly assessing crop damages. The
rest of the identified learning aspects were moderately adopted. This finding is
consistent with the findings in Table 13 where trainers had highly adopted the
features and characteristics of FFS.
More than 50% of the learning aspects from the FFS were noted as poorly
applied by farmers in Abra, Ifugao and Mt. Province while the other aspects were
moderately applied. The farmers from Apayao had a moderate application of their
learning from the FFS, except for the conduct of agro-ecosystems analysis which
is rated as highly applied. In Benguet, the conduct of research after the training
was poorly applied while all the other items were moderately applied.
The knowledge and skills gained from the FFS-IPM, particularly in the
Agro-ecosystem analysis provided farmers with a more systematic manner of
monitoring their fields regularly. Their regular assessment and interpretation of
the observations has apparently become a habit. Farmer graduates now do regular
assessment of crop damages; regular field monitoring; and are more conscious
with the proper use of pesticides and the amount of fertilizers, applied at the right
time. One farmer said during the interview:
70
“Tatta a ket, nadaras ti panagpasyar met idiay talon ta
kitaen no anya ti problema. No idi a ket, no nalpas to raep ket
mapan lang no tiempo ti panag-spray ken panag-abono”.
(“Now, I visit the field very often to see the problems.
Before, after planting is finished, i only go to the field when i
spray and apply fertilizer”).
This result is in support to the statement of Van den Berg (2004) that FFS
graduates gained complex knowledge on agro-ecosystem management, retained
over five years and knowledge was shared with non-FFS, however it did not
readily diffuse.
Although considered mundane farm activities, the practice of crop
sanitation at all times to reduce insect pest incidence and disease inocula, is now
better appreciated. With this practice, a similar activity is to regularly check the
presence of harmful organisms in the farm. This monitoring led to the reduction
of pesticide use to 54.97% (Table 6).
Overall, the level of application of knowledge and skills learned is
moderate. This result indicates that the farmers have yet to reach a level of
adjustments in the application of IPM technologies.
Other constraints in the low adoption of IPM identified by Ali (1997) are
the lack of full and continuous support from the local government units, lack of
awareness and appreciation of IPM products, lack of specific market outlet for
IPM products, and insufficient training. Tovignan and Nuppenau (2004) found
that the reasons for non adopters are low yields, and lack of information while
71
adopters reasons are based on desire for stable income, lack of transparency in the
conventional sector and health. Domoguen (2008), pointed that aside from
strengthening the implementation of FFS, the local market should put a premium
on products that are healthier to eat to encourage the sustenance of farmers to
practice IPM and better yet, to convert to organic farming.
Degree of Changes Made and Suggestions in the
FFS - IPM Features and Characteristics
This section focused on the changes made on the 13 major features and
characteristics of FFS namely: methodology; duration; number of participants;
time of day; number of hours; subject matter; sequence of activities; research
theme; research design; field monitoring; conduct of insect/disease zoos; conduct
of field days and graduation; and determining incomes and profits. It also
considered the suggestions/modifications with regards to features and
characteristics of FFS-IPM.
Degree of Changes Made in the FFS-IPM
Features and Characteristics
Significant differences among the provinces were observed in the time of
day, number of hours, subject matter or topic, research design, conduct of AESA,
and conduct of field day and graduation (Table 18). It was noted that five items of
73
72
Table 18. Degree of changes made in the FFS features and characteristics
FEATURES AND
DEGREE OF CHANGES MADE
F-
MEAN
DE
SIG
CHARACTERISTICS
Abra
Apayao
Benguet
Ifugao
Kalinga
Mt. Prov.
VALUE
1.
Methodology
1.57
1.50
1.44
1.40
1.08
1.33
1.39
NC
1.26
0.299
2.
Duration
1.29
1.33
1.44
1.50
1.08
1.67
1.39
NC
1.86
0.121
3.
Number of
1.43
1.33
1.44
1.30
1.25
1.67
1.40
NC
0.86
0.517
participants
4.
Time of day
1.29
1.17
1.78
1.40
1.33
1.78
1.46
NC
2.77*
0.028
5.
Number of hours
1.29
1.17
1.78
1.80
1.33
1.89
1.54
M
3.34*
0.012
6.
Subject matter/focus
1.29
1.33
1.56
1.50
1.17
1.89
1.46
M
3.46*
0.010
topic
7.
Sequence of
1.29
1.17
1.44
1.70
1.25
1.67
1.42
NC
1.10
0.373
activities
8.
Research theme:
1.43
1.33
1.89
1.70
1.42
1.78
1.59
M
1.74
0.144
IPM
9.
Research design
1.57
1.17
1.67
1.70
1.25
1.78
1.52
M
2.48*
0.045
10. Field monitoring
1.43
1.17
1.44
1.60
1.00
1.44
1.35
NC
2.50*
0.044
(AESA)
11. Conduct
1.71
1.17
1.67
1.60
1.58
1.67
1.57
M
0.84
0.494
insect/disease zoos
12. Conduct of field
1.43
1.43
1.56
1.20
1.00
1.33
1.33
NC
2.84*
0.026
day/ and graduation
13. Research data
1.14
1.14
1.00
1.10
1.00
1.22
1.10
NC
1.09
0.376
analysis
Mean
1.40
1.26
1.55
1.50
1.21
1.62
1.42
DE
NC
NC
M
M
NC
M
NC
** - significant
ns – not significant
Legend: 1:00 – 1.49 = No change (NC)
1.50 – 2.00 = Modified (M)
73
the features and characteristics namely: number of hours; subject matter or topic;
research theme; research design; and conduct insect/disease zoos were modified
which were done in Benguet, Ifugao, and Mt. Province.
The modifications made were necessary to address all necessary topics
covered under each particular commodity or topic. These were attributed to the
shifting of FFS from IPM of vegetable to organic farming; to fruits trees; to agro-
forestry; to livestock; to child nutrition; to rice or corn; and from rice to
vegetables; to corn or other commodities. All these required flexibilities to
address specific commodities.
The conduct of insect/disease zoo, though not significant is modified by
all the provinces. This implies that the conduct of insect/disease zoos is somehow
difficult to handle by farmers. Few indicated they omitted this part during the
conduct of FFS. Insect/disease zoos require some degree of delicate handling, and
need appropriate materials to be successful. The preparation of materials and the
conduct of insect/disease zoo are painstaking and meticulous.
Suggested Modifications in the FFS-IPM
Features and Characteristics
There are relatively few responses on the suggested modifications with
regard to the features and characteristics of FFS (Table 19). However, their
suggestions were considered important for any improvement of the program.
74
Table19. Issues and suggested modifications in the FFS features and
characteristics
ISSUES AND SUGGESTED
FREQUEN-
MODIFICATIONS IN THE FFS FEATURES
PERCENT
CY
AND CHARACTERISTICS
1. Methodology
- Discussion too long that this may cause
annoyance resulting to dwindling
attendance
- Strengthen the participatory part of FFS.
10
18.5
Participants should be more involved in
the planning process and actual conduct
of the study
- Adopt Palaycheck system
- Consider the use of charts, film showing
2. Duration
- For vegetables, at least 3 cropping,
every after two weeks sessions
9
16.7
- For organic based FFS for 2 – 3
cropping season, twice meetings in a
month
- Farmers classes for straight 5 days
3. Number of participants
5
9.3
- Reduced participants 15-25 (only
interested)
4. Time of day
2
3.7
- Consider scheduling on weekend to
accommodate more farmers
5. Number of hours
- Reduced number of hours to 2 -3 hours
6
11.1
- Lengthen time if necessary
75
Table19. continued…
ISSUES AND SUGGESTED
FREQUEN-
MODIFICATIONS IN THE FFS FEATURES
PERCENT
CY
AND CHARACTERISTICS
6. Subject matter/focus topic
- Emphasize more on profit and income
- In strawberry, cycles of planting
material production- the critical
production factor should be emphasized
- Include marketing
- Expand to ICM
- More on soil fertility, nutrient
management
10
18.5
- Note: In fertilizer computation: it’s the
job of the technician, not many farmers
are able to do it even with STK results
- Insect, pest and diseases
- Skills development in monitoring leads
to better mgt techniques
- Emphasize on use of cultural practices:
planting distance, use of biological
control agents available
- Organic farming
1
1.9
7. Sequence of activities
2
3.7
8. Research theme
9. Research design
- Include variety trials , INM trials
8
14.8
- Improve skill in data collection and
analysis
10. Field monitoring (AESA)
- Drawing every time is not necessary,
farmers already know the pests.
Instead concentrate on its management,
and emphasize on knowing the signs and
proper timing of management and
importance of monitoring, early
76
Table19. continued…
ISSUES AND SUGGESTED
FREQUEN-
MODIFICATIONS IN THE FFS FEATURES
PERCENT
CY
AND CHARACTERISTICS
detection of possible problems will lead
to IPM.
- Drawing may discourage those who are
not skilled and loose interest in
participating
6
11.11
- Do question and answer in the field
rather than drawing and presentation of
groups drawings
- Optional AESA – reporting of
observations and remove drawing but
more of insect/disease identification
11. Conduct of insect/disease zoos
8
14.8
- Minimize or reduce insect/disease zoos
- b. Omit the insect/disease zoo
3
5.6
12. Conduct of field day/and graduation
13. Calculation of incomes and profits
5
9.3
Qc = 27.165**
Sig. = 0.000
Statistical analysis shows that the varied responses are significantly
different from each other as shown in Cochran’s Q-test at 27.165.
The highest percentage of proposed modifications is in the methodology
and the subject matter of the training with 10 (18.5%) respondents each. The
identified methodology suggested improving the facilitating skills of trainers to be
able to sustain interest during sessions and thus sustaining high attendance.
77
PalayCheck system was suggested as an upscaling FFS activity for rice systems,
including the use of charts and film showing.
On the subject matter, majority of the topics are of the same subjects in the
previous curriculum. Additional topics included marketing which emphasized
income and profit; and organic farming. An important concern raised is the
transfer of some skills that may not be necessary for farmers, such as the use of a
Soil Test Kit (STK). It was mentioned that majority of the farmers may not be
able to use this tool in their lives. Thus, this level of technology may be more
appropriate for technicians, while the farmers are the end users of results of the
STK analysis made by the technicians.
The third area with highest respondents (9) is the duration of the FFS
training. The suggestions vary. Some hope to reach their goal of proving the
outcome of IPM and organic farming; some suggest three cropping seasons, but
with longer interval of sessions like every after two weeks, and having FFS for
straight five days.
As regards research design, which is normally comparative studies
between IPM practices versus the conventional farmers’ crop protection practices,
eight(8) respondents suggested more researches in integrated nutrient
management and also variety trials. There had been arguments about making the
research simple with the farmers. However, simplicity at the farmers’ level is
combining all available management practices aimed to increase yield. At the end
78
of the training-research, it was noted that many factors might have affected the
results. More often, fertilizer trials were combined with many other techniques in
pest management, hence, it would be more appropriate to call it integrated crop
management.
Another proposal from eight(8) respondents (14.8%) was to omit or
reduce the conduct of insect-disease zoos to conform to the poor adaptability
results (Table 8), and thus, was modified and omitted during the FFS
implementation (Table 15). This implies that the trainers have difficulties in
dealing with the science of IPM not due to the lack of appreciation and
understanding. On the other hand, it must be required, although in a more
systematic manner. Insect and disease zoos are important tools to show and
illustrate “cause and effect” of pests, and even of beneficial organisms. Trainer
and farmer “friendly” insect and disease zoos should be devised for all the crops
to encourage the use of the approach.
In field monitoring, using the Agro-ecosystem analysis, it was suggested
that emphasis should be the skill to identify or detect early signs and symptoms of
crop production problems. This will help the farmers practice IPM. Trainers felt
that the drawing in AESA may not be necessary anymore. Instead, they proposed
that “question and answer” be conducted in the field while actively going through
their observations. The agro-ecosystem analysis is the centerpiece of the FFS in
79
which decision making evolves. Without observations in the field, there is no base
information for discussions.
Other proposals were to reduce the number of participants per FFS from
25-30 to 15 – 20, and to select those that are truly interested and the possibility of
reducing the number of hours to two to three hours per session.
Suggested Topics for Future FFS
On topics for consideration in case the FFS will be conducted again, the
following were suggested: Integrated Pest Management, Integrated Soil Fertility
Management, Organic Farming, Food Processing, Marketing, Good Agricultural
Practices, and Farm Enterprise.
Statistical analysis shows in Table 20 that there is significant difference
among responses at 74.275. Organic farming was chosen as the most preferred
topic (66.7%) followed by Integrated Soil Fertility Management (58.7%) and
Integrated Pest Management (52%). The results indicate that the farmers realized
they needed the know how to improve soil fertility. Some farmers related during
the interview that no matter how they managed pest problems if the soil is poor,
they can not achieve proper pest management especially for diseases. The crop
yield still suffers, thus the need for options to improve soil fertility.
This observation is in fact the foundation of organic farming. Organic
farming relies primarily on proper crop nutrition. This is the commonly observed
phenomenon whereby a plant that is provided with the proper nutrition from
80
Table 20. Suggested topics in the future FFS
TOPIC
FREQUENCY
PERCENT
1. Integrated Pest Management
78
52
2. Integrated Soil Fertility Management
88
58.7
3. Organic Farming
100
66.7
4. Food Processing
35
23.3
5. Marketing
61
40.7
6. Good Agricultural Practices
59
39.3
7. Farm Enterprise
67
44.7
Qc = 74.275*
Sig. - 0.000
natural sources, will be healthy and highly productive even without the use of
synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. A naturally healthy plant can better withstand
and counter the effects of insect pests and diseases. As the Soil Association
believes that “organic farming is the only way that high quality food production
can go hand in hand with caring for our health, the countryside, and its wildlife”
(http://www.sheepdrove.com/203.htm).
The least topic chosen by the respondents was food processing (23.3%).
This implies that generally farmers do not go for processing their produce instead
they produce for the processing institutions.
81
Summary
The purpose of the study was to gather information on the implementation
of Farmer Field School and the adoption of the IPM technologies. Specifically,
the study determined: 1) the relationship between motivational factors and the
extent of the adaptability, appropriateness, and relevance on the features and
characteristics of FFS-IPM and reasons in the conduct of FFS-IPM; 2) the extent
of the adaptability, appropriateness, and relevance on the features and
characteristics of FFS-IPM; 3) the relationship between the socio-economic
factors and the extent of the adaptability, appropriateness, and relevance of the
features and characteristics of FFS-IPM; 4) the degree of application of IPM
technologies; and 5) identified suggestions for the improvement of the FFS
program.
Fifty three active trainers and 150 farmer graduates were interviewed in 22
selected municipalities in all the provinces of CAR, namely: Abra, Apayao,
Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga , and Mt. Province.
The study used a semi-structured survey questionnaire to collect data. The
data base on FFS implementation from the Regional IPM Coordinating unit of
DA – RFU, CAR served as source of data for the identification of respondents.
Focused group discussions and triangulation was employed. The data were
statistically analyzed using frequency, mean, percentages, analysis of variance,
82
Cochran Q-test with the SPSS program and point biserial for correlations.
Comparisons were made at 0.05 level of significance.
The following are the salient findings of the study:
1.a) Most of the trainer respondents were in the middle ages (41 – 55);
more females than male; 81% college graduates and 19 with masters degree in
nine different disciplines; 74% graduated from TOT, 21% from TOS, and 6%
from crush courses in vegetables, rice and corn; implemented an average of seven
FFS in an average of three years; 45% attended five or more FFS-IPM related
training courses and workshops, 30% attended less than 5 but 25% never attended
other FFS related training courses.
1.b) Majority of the farmers were in the ages 41 - 55, 31% reached
college, 52%finished high school, and 17 in high school; had average savings of
54.97% from cost of pesticide, 51.90% from fertilizer inputs, 43.20% from cost of
labor; 16.19% increase in production, 16.68% in income, and 15.56% in profit.
2. a) The lead motivation for trainers in implementing FFS-IPM was their
concern for health (production of safe food), followed by the efforts to restore and
preserve beneficial organisms, reduce chemical inputs, enhance biodiversity, and
increase income and profit of farmers. In addition, trainers were motivated
because they have opportunities for regular encounters with farmers in the
barangays with support from their heads of offices.
83
2.b) Reasons for implementing the FFS were to learn and share their
knowledge and skills with farmers, and train farmers in IPM by research. Some
trainers implemented FFS to respond to office mandate and few admittedly are
challenged to test their ability as trainers of IPM.
2.c) Three motivational factors significantly influenced the adaptability,
appropriateness and relevance of the features and characteristics of FFS – IPM
namely: higher income and profit of farmers, safer food production, and the
enhancement of biodiversity. The more motivated the trainer to effect higher
income and profit by the farmers, the lesser was their adaptability of the FFS –
IPM features and characteristics; the more motivated the trainer to effect the
enhancement of biodiversity, the higher was their adaptability; and the more
motivated the trainers to effect the production of safe food by the farmers, the
higher the perceived relevance are the features and characteristics of FFS – IPM.
3.a) The overall degree of adaptability of the features and characteristics
was moderate; the degree of appropriateness and relevance were both high.
3.b) Number of participants, time of the day, number of hours, and the
conduct of insect/disease zoos were consistently rated moderate along
adaptability, appropriateness and relevance.
3.c) High degree of adaptability was noted from the trainers of Benguet,
Ifugao and Kalinga, moderate from Abra, Apayao and Mt. Province. High level of
appropriateness was found from trainers in Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga and Mt.
84
Province; moderate from Abra and Apayao; and high degree of relevance from
Apayao, Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga and moderate from Abra and Mt. Province.
3.d) The effects of FFS on the income and profit as well as the adoption of
IPM technologies were moderate.
4.a) Gender, season long training in FFS – IPM on vegetables and rice and
attendance to FFS –IPM related consultation workshops had negative significant
relationships with the adaptability, appropriateness and relevance of the features
and characteristics of FFS – IPM. The male respondents perceived a lower
adaptability of the features and characteristics of FFS – IPM than the females.
More attendance in season long training in FFS – IPM on vegetables and rice, the
lesser appropriate are the features and characteristics of the FFS – IPM. More
attendance in season long training in vegetables, relevance was less perceived;
More attendance of trainers in consultation workshops, the lesser was
appropriateness perceived.
4.b) Farmers attended regular FFS sessions basically 1) to learn new
things as they were convinced with the objectives of the program; and 2) farmers
expected to get support or material things after the training. Other reasons
included the influence of neighbors attending the training and they became
inspiration to others.
85
4.c) Major motivation in applying knowledge and skills gained were
higher income and profit, safer food, reduced cost of pesticides and reduced cost
of fertilizers.
4.d) Degree of knowledge and skills applied was moderate. Provinces
differ significantly with Abra, Apayao, Benguet, and Kalinga had moderate level
of application of the knowledge and skills while weak application of knowledge
and skills was noted in Ifugao and Mt. Province.
5.a) Significant differences existed among the provinces in the degree of
change along time of day, number of hours, subject matter, research design, and
conduct of insect/disease zoo. Number of hours, subject matter, research theme,
and field monitoring were modified.
5.b) Suggestions for modifications were on methodology, coverage of
subject matter, duration, conduct of insect/disease zoo, research design, conduct
of AESA and the number of hours. Topics suggested for any upcoming FFS
related training activities were organic farming, soil fertility management, and
integrated pest management.
86
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
Based on the results and findings, the following conclusions and
implications are drawn:
1. Middle age may be considered as a right age for trainers to conduct
FFS, workshops which is coupled with high educational qualifications. On the
other hand, training qualifications vary in terms of the number of trainings taken,
number of crash courses attended to no training at all related to FFS-IPM. Most
farmer respondents are middle aged and are economically capable to apply IPM
program.
2.a) The trainers’ motivation for the implementation of the program is
based on the fundamental tenets of self-preservation and concern for the
environment hence the trainers’ main reason to conduct FFS is to share
knowledge and skills to the farmers.
2.b) There are motivational factors that influence adaptability,
appropriateness and relevance of the features and characteristics of FFS-IPM;
others do not.
3. The degree of adaptability, appropriateness, and relevance of the
features and characteristics in the implementation of the program ranges from
moderate to high.
87
4. Socio-economic factors as used in the study reflect the trainers’ need
for more relevant, appropriate and adaptable aspects of the program to address the
needs of the changing times. The farmers’ level of application of knowledge and
skills gained from FFS – IPM varies from moderate to low.
5. While there are no changes made in the features and characteristics of
FFS – IPM, suggestions for modifications emphasizes aspects where trainers
consider as important.
Recommendations
Based on the findings and conclusions, the following are recommended:
1. There is a need for new a breed of younger FFS as core trainers. The
training programs should be selective to consider age, field of specialization that
is close to the main training content and those who have potential skill and
competencies for development.
2. The motivating factors of trainers in implementing the FFS –IPM
program does not only benefit trainers and farmer graduates but for the entire
consuming public. It is therefore recommended that the FFS be placed in a
broader rural development perspective because benefits also accrue to sectors
such as the public health, environmental protection, economy and education.
Resources from the above sectors can be pooled to support safe food production
by the local farmers not only in terms of manpower resources but funding. DA
88
should revive and spearhead or establish a strong coordinating body among
agencies concerned to corner funds from agencies, not only from DA and LGUs
to support safe food production.
3. Though the program supposes to be LGU led, the DA is still seen as the
initiator of the program including full fund source. Thus, DA should institute a
strong monitoring and evaluation scheme not only counting the number of FFS
conducted and number of farmers trained but the impact of the FFS – IPM
through the local executives. The DA should look at the FFS as a developmental
program, not as stand alone, thus DA should prioritize graduates of FFS as
partners in their various programs and projects, and as implementers of the
agriculture interventions initiated from the agriculture sector. This way,
confusions by the agriculture technicians and the farmers about programs and
projects implemented by the DA is corrected.
4. All the features and characteristics contribute to the uniqueness,
dynamism, and strategic effectiveness of FFS-IPM to efficiently promote the
adoption of technologies. Five items namely, duration, number of participants,
time of day, number of hours, and conduct of insect/disease zoos have to be re-
examined to conform with norms that make a quality training program cost
effective and efficiency. The cause of the differences between moderate and high
degree of implementation among the provinces should also be re-examined and
evaluated for future recommendations. Follow-up workshops are needed to
89
evaluate the adaptability, relevance and appropriateness of insect/disease zoos and
other items in the features and characteristics of FFS to be able to identify the
weaknesses and strengths affecting the efficiency of FFS/IPM implementation.
The DA (or any institution conducting related training) should be conscientious in
accepting training, workshop participants. Training should only be undertaken
where it is strategically important to do so and where the training effort can have
maximum effect.
5. To sustain the attendance of farmers in regular sessions, clarity on the
objectives and goals of the program is very important to be understood during the
ground working activities. Trainers must always have new relevant information
every session to sustain and drum beat the participation and interest of farmers.
6. It is recommended that an exit plan should be developed with graduates
is recommended. In similar manner, the LGUs should develop long term follow
up mechanism to keep tract agricultural production management practices and
activities of farmers. Farmer participants can now pay acceptable training cost for
better appreciation of learning.
7. The specific suggestions and comments concerning the implementation
of FFS-IPM with regards the features and characteristics be evaluated further for
their usefulness in the program.
LITERATURE CITED
ALI, I. D., 1997. The Effectiveness of Farmers’ Field School as a Training
Strategy for Sustainable Adoption of Integrated Pest Management by
Cordillera Vegetable Farmers. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
ANON.
The
Principles
of
Organic
Farming.
http://www.sheepdrove.com/203.htm. Accessed on August 26, 2009.
ANON, 1994. KASAKALIKASAN, The Philippine National IPM Program.
Printed by the National Agribusiness Corporation.
ANON. 2009. Leadership Theories on Motivation and Satisfaction.
http://www.essay-911.com/samples/Theories.htm. Accessed on August
26, 2009.
ATI-DA, CAR, 2008. Agricultural Workers Profile of the Cordillera
Administrative Region.
ARCHER, D., 1997. The REFLECT Process at an International Level.
Participation, Literacy and Empowerment. PLA Notes. IIED. Vol. 32. Pp.
31- 39.
BINAMIRA, J., 2001. Country Report submitted at the meeting of the
Programme Advisory Committee, November 2001. Community Integrated
Pest Management.
BROTO, A. S., 2008. Statistics Made Simple. Second Edition. National Book
Store. P. 12.
CHENG, C. L. and K.V. BERSAMIRA, 1997. Pesticides: Its Hazardous Effects
on the Benguet Farmers and the Environment. Unique Printing Press,
Baguio City. Philippines. P.5.
CLAVERIA, C., L. PALENGLENG, and A. PEREY, 2009. Technology
Assessment of Sweetpotato Clean Planting Material Production in Balutu,
Conception, Tarlac. Research Paper in Technology Assessment Class
2008. Unpublished
91
COONEY, R., M. TERZIOVSKI and D. SAMSON., 2002. Employee Training,
Quality Management and the Performance of Australian and New Zealand
Manufacturers. Working Paper. Monash University. New Zealand.
COTTINGHAM, S., 1998. How can REFLECT be used widely without diluting
the Participatory Nature of the Process. Participation, Literacy and
Empowerment. PLA Notes. IIED. Vol. 32. Pp. 43-46.
DA-RFU, CAR, 2008. Status Report. KASAKALIKASAN, The Regional IPM
Program.
DOMANOG, L. E., 2007. Job Satisfaction and Work Value of Teachers in the
Vicariate Schools of Mt. Province. Unpublished Master’sThesis, Benguet
State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
DOMOGUEN, R. L., 2008. Strengthening the Farmer Field School. Agriculture
Magazine. Feb. 2008.
DRIESCHE, R. V. & T. S. BELLONES, 1996. Biological Control. New York. An
International Thompson Publishing Company. Pp. 76 – 81.
Employer-Employee.com (2001), as cited by Alupias, E. 2002. Capacity
Development of the Researchers of Benguet State University.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Benguet State University, La Trinidad,
Benguet.
GALLAGHER, K. D., A. R. BRAUN and D. DUVESKOG. 2009. Demystifying
Farmer Field School Concepts. Accessed on July 11, 2009. Unpublished.
GEE and NYSTROM (1999) as cited by Cooney, R., M. Terziovski & D. Samson
(2002). Employee Training, Quality Management and the Performance of
Australian and New Zealand Manufacturers. Working Paper. Monash
University. New Zealand.
Global FFSNet. 2008.
GUMPENG, J. T., 2007. Computer-Based Technologies and the Science
Teachersin the Catholic Elementary Schools in Baguio City. Unpublished
Master’s Thesis, Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
IIBC, 1996. TA Final Report. Integrated Pest Management for Highland
Vegetables. Volume 1.
92
IIBC, 1996. Farmer Field School Documentary. Integrated Pest Management for
Highland Vegetables. Volume 6.
LEGASPI, A. G., 1995. Adoption of Rice Production Technologies in
Pangasinan: An Assessment. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Benguet
State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
MEDINA, J. R. and CALLO, J. P. Jr., 1997. Empowering Farmers: The
Philippine National Integrated Pest Management Program. SEAMEO
Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture
(SEARCA), Los Banos, Laguna. Philippines.
PALENGLENG, L. M., 2008. Final Report. Farmer Field School. Rural
Enterprise and Small Scale Commercial Agriculture Development Project.
The World Bank and Ministry of Agriculture, Armenia.
PALENGLENG, L. M., 2008. Farmer Field School Training Manual for Armenia.
Unpublished.
PEDON, D. G., 1998. Agroecosystem Management for Improved Human Health:
Applying Principles of Integrated Pest Management to People.
Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society of Animal
Science. Canada.
PONTIUS, J, R. DILTS, and A. BARTLETT, 2002. Ten Years of IPM Training
in Asia - From Farmer Field School to Community IPM. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Regional Office for Asia
and the Pacific. FAO Community IPM Programme.
SMELTZER, S. C. and B. G. BARE, 2004. Textbook of Medical-Surgical
Nursing. Lippingcott Williams and Wilkins., Vol.1., 10th Ed. P.5.
SCHUENEMAN, T. J., 1992. Journal of Extension. Vol. 30. No. 4. University of
Florida-Belle
Glade.
http://www.joe.org/joe/1992winter/ent.html.
Accessed on January 2009.
TOVIGNAN, D. S. and E. A. NUPPENAU. 2004. Adoption of Organic Cotton in
Benin: Does Gender Play a Role? A Paper presented to the Conference on
Rural Poverty Reduction through Research for Development and
Transformation. Berlin.
93
VAN DEN BERG, H., 2004. IPM Farmer Field Schools. A Synthesis of 25
Impact Evaluations. Wageningen University
VAN DER WIELE, C. F., 2002. Using Integrated Pest Management – Farmer
Field School as Development Relief. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation
Research, North Carolina State University, NC. USA.
VISAYAN, J. C., 2003. Competence and Empowerment of KASAKALIKASAN
Trainers in Cordillera Region: An Assessment. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
WANAWAN, M. T., 2005. Determinants of Utilizing Organic Vegetable
Technologies in Benguet Province. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Central Luzon State University. Science City of Munoz, Nueva Ecija.
p107, 143.
APPENDIX A
Letter to the Respondents
Republic of the Philippines
Benguet State University
GRADUATE SCHOOL
La Trinidad, Benguet
18 February 2009
______________________________
Municipal Agriculturist
Municipality of _________________
Province of ____________________
Dear Ma’am/Sir:
The undersigned is currently working on a research study entitled “Farmer
Field School as a Participatory Training and Research Approach to IPM in CAR”
as a requirement for the degree in Ph. D. – Rural Development at the Benguet
State University.
I choose to conduct the research with the intention that the results of the
study can hopefully contribute in the development of upscaling activities of
Farmer Field Schools. At the same time, this forms part of the documentation of
the status of FFS as an educational material in Extension System.
In this regard, may I humbly ask your assistance through the FFS trainers
to accomplish the questionnaire and identify four farmer graduates to also
accomplish an appropriate survey forms. Rest assured, the information and data
will be held confidential and acknowledged.
Very Truly Yours,
LUZVIMINDA M. PALENGLENG
Student Researcher
95
APPENDIX B
Control No. ______
Interview Schedule
(For FFS Trainers/Facilitators)
Part 1. A. Socio-economic Factors
1. Name: ______________________________________________________
2. Address: ____________________________________________________
3. Sex :
( ) female
( ) male
4. Age : ___________________
5. Civil Status: ( ) married
( ) single
6. Highest Educational Attainment: ( ) BS
( ) MS
( ) Ph. D
7. Field of Specialization in degree:
( ) Animal Husbandry/Vet Med ( ) Crop Protection (Entom/Plt Patho)
( ) Crop Science (Agro/Horti) ( ) Economics
( ) Extension/RD
( ) Farm Mechanization
( ) Forestry
( ) Home Mgt, Technology, Nutrition
( ) Soil Science
8. Position in government office:
( ) Agriculture technician
( ) Municipal Agriculturist/MAO
( ) Agriculturist 1,11
( ) Sr. Agriculturist
9. Current designation in office: as Coordinator in
( ) HVCC
( ) Corn
( ) Rice
( ) Livestock
( ) Fisheries
( ) RIC/4-HClub
( ) Others, please specify: __________________________________
B. FFS Experiences
1. Type of Training attended (TOT – Training of Trainers/TOS – Training of
Specialists):
( ) TOS on: ( ) Vegetables
( ) Rice
( ) Corn
( ) TOT on: ( ) Vegetables
( ) Rice
( ) Corn
2. Year graduated from TOT/TOS: ________________________________
3. No. of years you had been conducting FFS: ________________________
96
4. No. of FFS you conducted/co-facilitated/co-managed:
Commodity
Year
Number
1. Corn
2. Rice
3. Vegetable
4. Fruits
5. Livestock
6. Chicken
7. Agro-Forestry
8. Child Nutrition
9. Organic Farming
10. Others, pls specify: _________
C. FFS Related Trainings Attended
1. Type of FFS related trainings attended
Crash course for ( )vegetable; ( )rice; ( )corn; ( )others, pls specify:______
2. No. of FFS related training courses attended: _____________________
3. No. of FFS related consultations and workshops attended: ___________
4. No. of FFS related consultations and workshops facilitated: __________
Part ll. Motivations in FFS Implementation
1. Why did you implement FFS training and research on IPM? Please choose two
major reasons only?
______ to respond to an office mandate
______ to test the IPM program through FFS
______ to train farmers in IPM by research
______ to test my competences as FFS trainer
______ to learn and share knowledge and skill with farmers
______ others, please specify, _______________________________
2. What are your motivations/goals in implementing FFS on IPM?
______ presence of strong support from local executives
______ incentives from the program (monetary, scholarships, trainings,
others)
______ farmers reduce chemical inputs
______ higher income and profit of farmers
______ pesticide free produce commands better price
97
______ safer food produced
______ restoration and preservation of beneficial organisms
______ enhancement of biodiversity
______ regular encounter with farmers in the community
______ others, pls specify ____________________________________
3. Please indicate the level of applicability by your farmer graduates using the
scale: weak, moderate, and high.
Rating
Items Learned
WA
MA
HA
1. Reduce pesticide use
2. Selective use of pesticide
3. Use required amount of fertilizers
4. Observe the fields regularly
5. Selective use of planting materials and
varieties
6. Others, pls specify:________
4. Please indicate the degree of observability or visibility of effects manifested
by your trainees using the scale.
Effects of FFS manifested by Farmer graduates
Rating
NO
MO
HO
1. Increase in income
2. Better in profit
3. Change in farming practice/s from previous to
current
4. Reduction in chemical inputs
5. Farmer became more vocal or more involved
in community affairs
6. Farmer became generous to share his
technology to co farmers
7. Farmer do own simple experiments
8. Others, pls specify: ___________________
98
5. Please indicate how many percent of your farmers applied what they learned?
Percent (%) of farmers who applied each
item
Items Learned
5-
11-
21-
31-
41-
51-
61-
71
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
&
abo
ve
1. Reduced Pesticide Use
2. Selective use of pesticide
3. Used required amount of
fertilizers
4. Observed the fields
regularly
5. Selective use of planting
materials and varieties
Part lll. Extent of FFS Implementation in terms of the FFS Principles, Features
and Characteristics
1. Please indicate the degree of the effect of the FFS features and characteristics
on the quality of FFS training and research using the scale:
FFS Features and Characteristics
Low
Mod
High
1. Methodology: uses discovery based, hands
on, experiential, facilitation technique and
use of guide questions
2. Duration : one cropping period = planting
to harvesting
3. Number of Participants : 25-30 participants
4. Time of Day (8:00 – 12; 7:00 – 11:00)
5. Number of hours ( 4 hrs)
6. Subject Matter/Focus Topic: IPM
7. Sequence or Program of Activities
(opening prayer, recap, present activity for
the day, AESA, group dynamic
activity/unfreezing activity, special topic,
evaluation, planning and closing
8. Research theme: IPM
9. Research Design: Farmer Crop Protection
Practices versus IPM Practices
99
10. Field monitoring-conduct of weekly Agro
Ecosystem Analysis
11. Conduct insect zoos, disease zoos
12. Conduct of Field Day and Graduation
13. Calculation of incomes and profits of FFS
14. Others, please specify:
2. Please indicate the level of adaptability of each of the FFS features and
characteristics in your locality when you implemented your FFS training and
researches using the rating.
FFS Features and Characteristics
Low
Mod
High
1. Methodology: uses discovery based, hands
on, experiential, facilitation technique and
use of guide questions
2. Duration : one cropping period = planting
to harvesting
3. Number of Participants : 25-30 participants
4. Time of Day (8:00 – 12; 7:00 – 11:00)
5. Number of hours ( 4 hrs)
6. Subject Matter/Focus Topic: IPM
7. Sequence or Program of Activities
(opening prayer, recap, present activity for
the
day,
AESA,
group
dynamic
activity/unfreezing activity, special topic,
evaluation, planning and closing
8. Research theme: IPM
9. Research Design: Farmer Crop Protection
Practices versus IPM Practices
10. Field monitoring-conduct of weekly Agro
Ecosystem Analysis
11. Conduct insect zoos, disease zoos
12. Conduct of Field Day and Graduation
13. Calculation of incomes and profits of FFS
14. Others, please specify:
100
3. Please indicate the level of appropriateness of each of the FFS features and
characteristics in your area using the scale:
FFS Features and Characteristics
NA
MA
HA
1. Methodology: uses discovery based, hands
on, experiential, facilitation technique and
use of guide questions
2. Duration : one cropping period = planting
to harvesting
3. Number of Participants : 25-30 participants
4. Time of Day (8:00 – 12; 7:00 – 11:00)
5. Number of hours ( 4 hrs)
6. Subject Matter/Focus Topic: IPM
7. Sequence or Program of Activities
(opening prayer, recap, present activity for
the
day,
AESA,
group
dynamic
activity/unfreezing activity, special topic,
evaluation, planning and closing
8. Research theme: IPM
9. Research Design: Farmer Crop Protection
Practices versus IPM Practices
10. Field monitoring-conduct of weekly Agro
Ecosystem Analysis
11. Conduct insect zoos, disease zoos
12. Conduct of Field Day and Graduation
13. Calculation of incomes and profits of FFS
14. Others, please specify:
_________________
4. If you are to go back to your FFS training and research graduates to conduct
another FFS, please indicate the level of relevance of each of the FFS features
and characteristics to the same group of farmers using the scale:
Current FFS Features and Characteristics
Rating
NR
MD
HR
1. Methodology: uses discovery based, hands
on, experiential, facilitation technique and
use of guide questions
2. Duration : one cropping period - planting to
harvesting
3. Number of Participants : 25-30 participants
101
4. Time of Day (8:00 – 12; 7:00 – 11:00)
5. Number of hours ( 4 hrs)
6. Subject Matter/Focus Topic: IPM
7. Sequence or Program of Activities
(opening prayer, recap, present activity for
the day, AESA, group dynamic
activity/unfreezing activity, special topic,
evaluation, planning and closing
8. Research theme: IPM
9. Research Design: Farmer Crop Protection
Practices versus IPM Practices
10. Field monitoring-conduct of weekly Agro
Ecosystem Analysis
11. Conduct insect zoos, disease zoos
12. Conduct of Field Day and Graduation
13. Calculation of incomes and profits of FFS
14. Others, please specify:
5. Please indicate the degree of effect of the IPM-FFS principles, features and
characteristics on the income and profit of farmer using the scale: ( )weak,
( )moderately strong, ( )very strong
6. Please indicate the degree of effect of the IPM-FFS principles, features and
characteristics on the adaptability of IPM technologies by farmers using the
following scale: ( )weak, ( )moderately strong, ( )very strong
Part lV. Changes made in the IPM – FFS Principles, Features and Characteristics
1. Please indicate the changes or modifications you made in the FFS features and
characteristics to fit the conduct of your FFS training and research?
FFS Features and Characteristics
No
Modified
change
1. Methodology: uses discovery based, hands on,
experiential, facilitation technique and use of
guide questions
2. Duration : one cropping period - planting to
harvesting
3. Number of Participants : 25-30 participants
4. Time of Day (8:00 – 12; 7:00 – 11:00)
102
5. Number of hours ( 4 hrs)
6. Subject Matter/Focus Topic: IPM
7. Sequence or Program of Activities (opening
prayer, recap, present activity for the day,
AESA, group dynamic activity/unfreezing
activity, special topic, evaluation, planning and
closing
8. Research theme: IPM
9. Research Design: Farmer Crop Protection
Practices versus IPM Practices
10. Field monitoring-conduct of weekly Agro
Ecosystem Analysis
11. Conduct insect zoos, disease zoos
12. Conduct of Field Day and Graduation
13. Calculation of incomes and profits of FFS
14. Others, please specify:
2. If you are to go back to your FFS training and research graduates to conduct
another FFS, what do you recommend to modify or improve in the principles,
features and characteristics of FFS to improve the profitability of farming
activities the farmers?
FFS Features
Suggested Changes
1. Methodology: uses discovery based, hands
on, experiential, facilitation technique and
use of guide questions
2. Duration : one cropping period = planting
to harvesting
3. Number of Participants : 25-30 participants
4. Time of Day (8:00 – 12; 7:00 – 11:00)
5. Number of hours ( 4 hrs)
6. Subject Matter/Focus Topic: IPM
7. Sequence or Program of Activities
(opening prayer, recap, present activity for
the day, AESA, group dynamic
activity/unfreezing activity, special topic,
evaluation, planning and closing
8. Research theme: IPM
9. Research Design: Farmer Crop Protection
Practices versus IPM Practices
103
10. Field monitoring-conduct of weekly Agro
Ecosystem Analysis
11. Conduct insect zoos, disease zoos
12. Conduct of Field Day and Graduation
13. Calculation of incomes and profits of FFS
14. Others, please specify:
3. If you will conduct FFS training and research in the future for other
crops/commodity,
what
crop/commodity
do
you
suggest?_____________________
104
APPENDIX C
Control No. _____
Interview Schedule
(For Farmer FFS Graduates)
Part 1: A. Socio-economic Factors
1. Name: _______________________________________________________
2. Address:
___________________________________________________
3. Sex :
( ) Female
( ) Male
4. Age: _____________________
5. Highest Educational Attainment: ( ) Elementary ( ) High School ( ) College
6. Year when trained in FFS _______________________________________
7. During your FFS training, what crop did you use?, and what variety?
Crop
Variety
1
1
2
2
3
3
8. What crop/s do you plant now?, and what variety/ies?
Crop
Variety
1
1
2
2
3
3
9. Can you estimate an average (per hectare) (or per land area for vegetables) of
how much you saved and earned from practicing what you learned when you
attended FFS?
Benefits
Amount/Vol.
1. Cost of pesticide inputs
2. Cost of fertilizer inputs
3. Cost of labor
4. Increase in production
5. Increase in income
6. Increase in profit
105
Part ll. Motivations in Attending and Applying Learning from FFS on IPM
1. What were your motivations/goals in attending the FFS training and research
before?
______cannot refuse trainers who invited me to join, i know her/him well, and
he/she is a friend
______ influenced by my neighbor who is attending the training
______ persuaded by the presence of friends in the training
______ cannot refuse the local officials/leaders who invited them to attend
______ expected to learn new things from the training
______ expected to get any support or material things after the training
______ convinced with the objectives of the training
______ was an inspiration to others
______ others, pls specify ______________________________________
2. What are your motivations/goals in applying what you learned from the FFS
training and research?
______ reduced pesticide cost and usage
______ reduced fertilizer cost and usage
______ higher income and profit
______ higher yield
______ safer food produced
______ restoration and preservation of beneficial organisms
______ cleaner environment
______ others, pls specify _______________________________________
Part lll. Application of Lessons Learned in FFS on IPM
1. Was it easy to practice or apply what you learned from the FFS-IPM training?
( )Yes, Why? _________________________________________
( )No, Why? __________________________________________
2. Please indicate the level of your application of learning using the scale of
weak, moderate and high.
Learning
W
M
H
1. Conduct regular field monitoring
2. Consider pesticide as the last resort to control
pests
3. Use proper amount of fertilizers at the right time
106
4. Practice crop sanitation at all time
5. Check presence of beneficial organisms in the
farm regularly
6. Check presence of harmful organisms in the farm
regularly
7. Assess crop damages regularly
8. Compute income, profit, and yield increase from
FFS practice
9. Conduct own research in my field
10. Do farm recording
11. Others: please specify:____________________
3. Please indicate the level of effects of applying your learning using the scale: (
) Weak, ( ) Moderate, ( ) High.
4. Please give your reason/s for applying what you learned from IPM - FFS
training and research?
Learning
Reason for applying
1. Conduct regular field monitoring
2. Consider pesticide as the last resort
to control pests
3. Use proper amount of fertilizers at
the right time
4. Practice crop sanitation at all time
5. Check
presence
of
beneficial
organisms in the farm regularly
6. Check
presence
of
harmful
organisms in the farm regularly
7. Assess crop damages regularly
8. Compute income, profit, and yield
increase from FFS practice
9. Conduct own research in my field
10. Do farm recording
11. Others:
please
specify:_______________
5. If FFS training and research will be organized again, do you want to follow or
modify any of the FFS features and characteristics to better address the
profitability of your farming activity? Please suggest any modification.
107
FFS Features and characteristics
Foll
Mod
Suggested
ow
ify
Modification
1. Methodology: uses discovery
based, hands on, experiential,
facilitation technique and use of
guide questions
2. Duration : one cropping period
= planting to harvesting
3. Number of Participants : 25-30
participants
4. Time of Day (8:00 – 12; 7:00 –
11:00)
5. Number of hours ( 4 hrs)
6. Subject Matter/Focus Topic:
IPM
7. Sequence or Program of
Activities
(opening
prayer,
recap, present activity for the
day, AESA, group dynamic
activity/unfreezing
activity,
special
topic,
evaluation,
planning and closing
8. Research theme: IPM
9. Research Design: Farmer Crop
Protection Practices versus IPM
Practices
10. Field monitoring-conduct of
weekly
Agro
Ecosystem
Analysis
11. Conduct insect zoos, disease
zoos
12. Conduct of Field Day and
Graduation
13. Calculation of incomes and
profits of FFS
14. Others, please specify:
108
6. If you are to attend FFS training and research again, what particular topic
would like to talk about?
Num
Topics
Reason
ber
Integrated Pest Management
Integrated
Soil
Fertility
Management
Organic Farming
Food Processing
Marketing
Good Agricultural Practices
Farm Enterprise
Others; please specify:
7. Any other Comment about the FFS on IPM:
109
APPENDIX D
Acronyms
AESA
Agro Ecosystem Analysis
ATI
Agricultural Training Institute
DA
Department of Agriculture
CAR
Cordillera Administrative Region
FFS
Farmer Field School
FCPP
Farmer Crop Protection Practices
HADP
Highland Agriculture Development Project
HVCC
High Value Commercial Crops
IIBC
International Institute of Biological Control
IPM
Integrated Pest Management
LGU
Local Government Units
OAS
Office of the Agricultural Services
OPAg
Office of the Provincial Agriculturist
PAENRO
Provincial Agriculture, Environment and Natural Resource
Office
RFU
Regional Field Unit
TOS
Training of Specialists
TOT
Training of Trainers
UNFAO
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
110
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
The author was born on 21 July 1964 in Gueday, Besao, Mt. Province. She
finished her elementary education at Agawa Elementary School and secondary
education at St. James’ High School, Besao, Mt. Province. She finished Bachelor
Science in Agriculture major in Plant Pathology and minor in Soil Science in
1988 and Master of Science in Plant Pathology in 2004 at the Benguet State
University. While studying, she served as an Assistant Dormitory Matron, and
Dormitory Matron of the then St. Ursula’s Dormitory, an Anglican church
institution at Km 5, La Trinidad, Benguet from 1987 to 1990.
In October 1987 to June 1989, she worked as sales clerk and promoter of
biopesticide (Bacillus thuringensis) with ABBOT AgroChemical Company.
Stationed in the agro-store not only exposed her to the variety of agrochemicals
that ranged from the most toxic to biological pesticides used in agriculture not
only in the region but also in nearby regions. She also witnessed how fast
pesticides were dislodged from the shelves of the store.
As a research assistant of the RP-German Biological Plant Protection
Project, from July 1989 to May 1990, she had been rearing biological control
agents: Diadegma semiclausum and Cotesia plutella together with their host –
Plutella xyllostella (diamond back moth) which is also a host for the production
of Bauveria sp. at the laboratory of the Northern Philippine Root Crop Research
and Training Center (NPRCTC), BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet.
111
In June 1990 to May 1994, she landed as agriculturist of the Highland
Agriculture Development Project (HADP) where she started to acquire
knowledge, skill and processes in farmer participatory research, extension and
training. Researches conducted with farmers focused on adaptability trials
including the use of Diadegma sp. These skills were further enhanced through
works with the International Institute of Biological Control (IIBC – CAB
International), from May 1994 to Sept. 1996. This was the massive promotion of
Biological Control as the flagship of Integrated Pest Management through the
Farmer Field School approach of research, extension and training. Through this
works, the author was able to share these skills and knowledge to her colleagues
in the agriculture sector as trainer-facilitator in the conduct of National and
Regional Vegetable Integrated Pest Management Training of Specialists (TOS),
Training of Trainers (TOT), Crash Courses, Refresher Courses, and Farmer Field
Schools in various barangays in selected parts of the country.
This background also has brought the author to international trainings and
workshops as resource person and consultant, to the Masters Training Ecological
Crop Management of Vegetable in Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies in 2002,
Sensitization Workshop on Farmer Participatory Approaches for Policy Makers in
the Caribbean Region in 2002; Regional Workshop on Farmer Participatory
Approaches to Ecological Crop Management in Trinidad & Tobago, West Indies,
2000, and the International Training Course and Workshop on the Evaluation of
112
Pesticide Effects on Natural Enemies and its Implication to Pesticide Registration
in Malaysia, 1995.
In her commitment to reach out more Filipino farmers, she joined the
Agricultural Training Institute – Cordillera Administrative Region as Training
Specialist ll from 1997 until March 2009.
The author further served as FFS international consultant to the Rural
Enterprise and Small Scale Commercial Agriculture Development Project
(RESCADP) with the World Bank in the Republic of Armenia in August and
November 2008; and to the UNDP Tsunami Recovery Program – Livelihoods
Project in the Republic of Maldives from August 2007 – March 2008.
Document Outline
- Factors Affecting theImplementation of Farmer Field School on Integrated Pest Management in theCordillera Administrative Region
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ABSTRACT
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- Background of the Study
- Conceptual Framework
- Statement of the Problem
- Hypotheses of the Study
- METHODOLOGY
- Research Design
- Population and Locale of the Study
- Data Collection Instrument
- Data Collection Procedures
- Treatment of Data
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- Profile of Respondents
- Socio-Economic Profile
- FFS Experiences
- Relationship of Motivations/Goalsof Trainers in ImplementingFarmer Field Schools
- Motivations/Goals of Trainers inImplementing FFS
- Reasons of Trainers in Implementing the FFS
- Relationships Between Motivational Factors and Extent ofFFS � IPM Features and Characteristics� Implementation
- Extent of Implementation of the Farmer Field SchoolFeatures and Characteristics
- Degree of Adaptability of FFSFeatures and Characteristics
- Degree of Appropriateness of FFSFeatures and Characteristics
- Degree of Relevance of FFS Featuresand Characteristics for the FutureFFS Implementation
- Perceived Degree of Effect of FFS on theIncome and Profit and Adoption of IPM
- Relationship Between Socio-Economic Factors ofTrainers and Extent of FFS � IPM Featuresand Characteristics Implementation
- Reasons of Farmers in Attendingthe FFS Regular Sessions
- Motivations/Goals of Farmers in Applying theKnowledge and Skills Gained from FFS
- Degree of Application of Knowledge andSkills Gained During the FFS
- Degree of Changes Made and Suggestions in theFFS - IPM Features and Characteristics
- Degree of Changes Made in the FFS-IPMFeatures and Characteristics
- Suggested Modifications in the FFS-IPMFeatures and Characteristics
- Suggested Topics for Future FFS
- Profile of Respondents
- SUMMARY
- CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES