Date post: | 15-Apr-2017 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | dipendra-kumar-ayer |
View: | 242 times |
Download: | 0 times |
“Learning by Doing, Learning by Experience”
ACTIVITY REPORT OF ECO-FRIENDLY IPM FIELD SCHOOL Students’-Farmers’ Field School
ABSTRACT Inclusion of students in
farmers’ field school had
only purpose of making
the future young
agriculturists well skilled
and experienced one so
that knowledge acquired
by them will be
disseminated and
extended among the
farmers and
environmentalists as well
for healthy nation
building.
Dipendra Kumar Ayer [email protected], www.facebook.com/ayerdk, np.linkedin.com/in/ayerdk
IPM Facilitator : Mr. LekhnathAdhikari (+977-9845442186)
Farmers’ Facilitator : Mr. Basudev Sapkota (+977-9855053033)
Field School Coordinator : Mr. Dipendra Kumar Ayer (+977-9848809382)
Field School Organizer: IPM – (S) FFS Group, IAAS, Rampur Campus
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AESA Agro-Ecosystem Analysis
AFU Agriculture and Forestry University
B.Sc.Ag. Bachelor of Science in Agriculture
DADO District Agriculture Development Office
DAP Di-Ammonium Phosphate
DAS Days after Sowing
DIC District IPM Committee
DOA Department of Agriculture
F1 First Generation
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UN)
FFS Farmer Field School
FP Farmers’ Practice/Plots
FYM Farm Yard Manure
IAAS Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science
ICM Integrated Crop Management
IP IPM Plots
IPM Integrated Pest Management
IPM-(S) FFS Integrated Pest Management-(Students’) Farmers’ Field School
LDO Local Development Office
LI Local Inhabitants
MOAD Ministry of Agriculture Development
MOP Murate of Potash
NG Nepal Government
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NPK Nitrogen-Phosphorus-Potash
OP Open Pollinated
PAR Participatory Action Research
PP Plant To Plant
RR Row To Row
VDCs Village Development Committees
FORWARD
Farmers’ Field Schools in academic institutions has been realized as one of the most important
ways of teaching learning step for quality education sharing. This is one of the participatory
teaching learning process where participants try to find out the problems, discuss in the groups
and make a common solution and practice in the field in participatory ways. This IPM Field
School is run for training to the farmers or participants and to bring agricultural extension staff,
NGO staff and make farmers able of being good farmer field school facilitators. It continues
the tradition of teaching as the facilitators will teach focusing on methods that are practical and
readily replicable with keen interest to the farmers. The farmers’ field school in the University
level has significant importance for quality education deliverables. It should be
institutionalized in the system and should be prioritized as a basis of teaching learning process
for the academic students in the University level of education. The crop management
approaches has been considered in FFS as a holistic approaches and where basic resources is
mainstreamed for receiving the targeted output. The FFS not only provide the better teaching
learning process but also helps to increase the confidence among the participants to develop
the leadership. The leadership for running the field school has already been developed by Mr.
Dipendra Kumar Ayer, who has initiated the IPM field school in the institute.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to acknowledge all the helping hands who directly or indirectly contributed to
make the training very successful. I want to thank Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science
(IAAS) for management of partial support for the training. Special thanks goes to Agriculture
and Forestry University (AFU) for supporting the financial activities and providing the place
for the program to get conducted successfully. I express my sincere gratitude to IPM facilitator
Mr. Lekhnath Adhikari, senior plant protection training officer from the Directorate of
Agricultural Training, DOA, Hariharbhawan, for providing his precious time for sharing
experiences in field school and farmers’ facilitator Mr. Basudev Sapkota for enabling the
participants in practical actions during field school. I acknowledge Assoc. Prof. Sundar Tiwari
for his valuable comments and support during this field school. I owe my colleagues and the
group leaders Krishna Dhakal, Upasana Dhakal, Arjun subedi, Keshav Chandra Bagale and
Mamata Basyal, for their coordination and immense support, without them it wouldn’t have
been so successful. I really appreciate the marketing committee for the excellent working
environment that they made during harvesting and selling of the IPM products. Special thanks
go to marketing coordinator, Mr. Sheetal Aryal for his continuous and tireless efforts in dealing
with customers, the members there who were always ready to offer help whenever called upon.
Last but not the least, thanks go to DADO, DIC, PPD and other local IPM farmers’ group for
their presence, continuous monitoring & support to make this season long program successful.
I would also like to remember all the farmers who have been involved in the implementation
of this program. A special thanks to Mr. Yam Prasad Adhikari for his valuable advice and
comments.
It’s difficult to mention everyone here by name and for those not mentioned, please accept my
apology. Thank you all.
Dipendra Kumar Ayer
Coordinator
Eco-friendly IPM Field School, Rampur Campus
Table of Contents
1. Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1
2. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
3. Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................... 2
4. Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 4
5. Participants and Site Selection ........................................................................................... 4
6. Fund Raising From Participants and Others ....................................................................... 4
7. Methodology and Dissemination of Technologies ............................................................. 6
7.1 Spatial Design for SFFS and PAR plots...................................................................... 7
7.2 Dissemination through IPM plots and Farmers’ plots: ............................................... 7
7.3 Dissemination through PAR plots: .............................................................................. 9
7.4 Treatments: ................................................................................................................ 10
7.5 Weekly followed activities ........................................................................................ 10
8. Other Disseminated Technologies .................................................................................... 11
8.1 Preparations of Eco-friendly IPM Field School ........................................................ 11
8.1.1 GHARELU BISHADI (घरेल ुबिषादी) or Homemade Pesticide Preparation ............ 11
8.1.2 JHOL Mal (झोल मल)or Homemade Liquid Fertilizer Preparation ....................... 12
8.1.3 BOKASI Mal (िोकासी मल) or Homemade Bokasi Fertilizer Preparation ............. 13
8.1.4 Vermicomposting ............................................................................................... 13
8.2 General IPM Knowledge ........................................................................................... 13
9. Results .............................................................................................................................. 14
9.1 Quantitative Results: ................................................................................................. 14
9.1.1 Capacity Building .............................................................................................. 14
9.1.2 Technical Results ............................................................................................... 14
9.2 Qualitative results ....................................................................................................... 16
10. Students’-Farmers’ Day ................................................................................................ 16
10.1 Inauguration of Ecofriendly IPM Field School ......................................................... 16
10.2 Closing Ceremony of Ecofriendly IPM Field School ............................................... 17
10.2.1 Technologies overviewed .................................................................................. 17
ii. Crops Section ............................................................................................................ 17
iii. Presentation Section .................................................................................................. 17
10.2.2 Guest of Honour ................................................................................................. 17
10.2.3 IPM-(S) FFS Group ........................................................................................... 18
11. Conclusion and Perspective .......................................................................................... 18
12. Recommendation ............................................................................................................ 19
13. Major Pest of Bitter Gourd ........................................................................................... 20
14. Snapshots of Eco-friendly IPM Field School ............................................................... 21
15. References ..................................................................................................................... 24
1 | P a g e E c o - f r i e n d l y I P M F i e l d S c h o o l , R a m p u r C a m p u s
1. Summary
The report summarizes the activities and progress of farmers’ field school conducted in Bitter
Gourd organized and managed by the students of B.Sc. Agriculture, 3rd Year (6th Semester,
batch-2010/11), Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science (IAAS), Rampur Campus.
Technical support was provided by Directorate of Agricultural Training, DOA,
Hariharbhawan, District Agriculture Development Office (DADO), Chitwan and District IPM
Farmers Association, Chitwan and the financial support by Faculty of Agriculture, Agriculture
and Forestry University (AFU), and partial funding by IAAS. The participants themselves
collected fund for the training. IPM is the sensible solution to pest problems, no matter what
the setting is. This season long (4 months) IPM-(S)FFS training i.e. the inclusion of students
in farmers’ field school had only purpose of making young agriculturists well skilled and
experienced one so that the knowledge acquired by them will be disseminated and extended
among the farmers and environmentalists as well for protecting the environment .It has enabled
the participants in stimulated continued learning, and it strengthened social and
political/leadership skills, which apparently prompted a range of local activities, relationships
and improved agro-ecosystem management. The training was based on participatory teaching
learning where group of individuals discussed on the problems, make and come up with
common solutions. The participatory discussion, preparation of cropping calendar, AESA
techniques, special classes, group dynamics, small research designs were the beauty of the
training.
2. Introduction
The Ecofriendly IPM-FS program was conducted at IAAS, Rampur to manage the pest through
integrated methods in bitter gourd crop. IPM practitioners has been using judiciously all pest
management approaches like biological, cultural, mechanical, and chemical controls. One of
the main activities scheduled by Eco-Friendly IPM Field School is the use of farmer field
school (FFS) to disseminate the technologies developed by agriculturists and to strengthen the
country’s technology transfer processes. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs based
on the Farmer Field School approach are being implemented in many countries. Their benefits
have been recognized by a broad range of stakeholders, including farming communities, local
and national governments, NGOs and donors, who are now supporting such programs.
Bitter gourd is one of the most popular cucurbitaceous vegetable. The bitter gourd (Momordica
charantia L.), looks like a cucumber but with ugly gourd-like bumps all over it. As the name
2 | P a g e E c o - f r i e n d l y I P M F i e l d S c h o o l , R a m p u r C a m p u s
implies, this vegetable is a melon that is bitter. It is grown for its immature tuberculate fruits
which have a unique bitter taste. Fruits are considered as a rich source of vitamins and minerals
and 88 mg vitamin C per 100 g. Fruits are used after cooking and delicious preparations are
made after stuffing and frying. During periods of glut in market, fruits are sliced, partially
boiled with salt and dried under direct sunlight and stored for months. This is used after frying.
Bitter gourd fruits have medicinal value and are used for curing diabetes, asthma, blood
diseases and rheumatism. Drinking fresh bitter gourd juice is recommended by naturopaths.
Roots and stem of wild bitter gourd are used in many ayurvedic medicines. Bitter Gourd is
grown extensively throughout Nepal, the fruit is wormicidal and good for rheumatism. It is a
warm season crop. Hot and moist weather is favorable for its growth and development. Low
temperature is good for germination of seeds. Bitter gourd is a warm season crop with wide
adaptability. Ideal temperature for its growth and flowering is 25-30 0C. Crop can be grown
even in places of slight lower temperature and high rainfall areas. Production of female
flowers, fruit set and growth of plant are seen affected above 35 0C and will be susceptible to
viral infections. As seeds have a hard seed coat, germination is affected below 10 0C. Well
drained and fertile sandy loam or silt loam is ideal for the crop. In hills, the crop is sown during
April-May. In plains where season is early, bitter gourd is sown during January-March.
3. Statement of the Problem
Bitter gourd is widely cultivated in South Indian regions and all over Nepal. Because of the
high nutritive value and medicinal purposes, it is becoming the most popular and emerging
vegetables in South Asian countries. As a vegetable, its nutritive value is very important. The
considerable increases in bitter gourd production is no doubt remarkable, but the fact remains
that the bitter gourd growers are engrossed with a number of problems like pests and diseases,
high labor charge etc. Keeping these in view, study was also carried out with the objective of
identifying the constraints encountered in the cultivation of bitter gourd. A list of constraints
collected through review of literature, discussion and experience of the researchers and of our
own during field school were collected and the respondents were asked to indicate whether
they were experiencing the constraints or not, in the cultivation of bitter gourd. These
constraints were grouped into production and economic constraints. Among the production
constraints, incidence of pests and diseases followed by labor scarcity, non-availability of
inputs and weather problems. The other constraints included uneven production and
unawareness of plant protection measures. Economic constraints include high cost of material
inputs followed by high labor charge, price fluctuation of the produce faced by the bitter gourd
3 | P a g e E c o - f r i e n d l y I P M F i e l d S c h o o l , R a m p u r C a m p u s
farmers, inadequate credit facilities, high transporting charges and inadequate marketing
facilities etc. It could be concluded that there exists a need to launch a massive training program
to motivate and educate the farmers to adopt effective plant protection measures. Efforts should
be taken by the extension agencies to strengthen the infrastructure facilities and to evolve low
cost technologies, which can be easily adopted by the farmers. Many studies in Nepal and India,
however, showed that despite the attributes of the crop, bitter gourd yields at farm level is very
low. Pests is one of the major constraints for bitter gourd production by direct reduction of crop
yield and quality, or indirectly by acting as vectors of important plant diseases. Insecticides are
the most effective control measure against pests. Thus, some farmers do not hesitate to use any
pesticide to achieve their goal. However, most farmers in Nepal are resource-poor and cannot
afford the use of pesticides. Moreover, insecticides are toxic and when used excessively may
be harmful to human health and the environment. Extent of bitter gourd yield losses as a result
of insect and pests’ infestation and diseases has serious implications on the food and economic
output of Nepalese peasant. If tropical farmers are to increase their net output on the land
available and to catch up with the food demands of the increasing rural and urban populations,
there is a need for pest management strategies that are cost-effective, sustainable and that
exclude or minimize the use of insecticides.
Farmers often think that the technologies brought to them are not fully suitable for their farms.
Moreover, they are not adapted to local conditions such as soil fertility, water availability,
realities of household economy, and the objectives that farm families wish to achieve.
Demonstrative plots managed by outsiders may not convince farmers to try something new.
However, farmer needs to experiment new technologies, to learn how to evaluate different
options and to decide what is best for them. Only an adult non-formal education can provide
such opportunity. Adult learns best from direct experience. “If I hear it, I forget it. If I see it,
I remember it. If I discover it, I own it for life”. So, This Farmer Field School (FFS) is based
on the principles of non-formal education, and was used to address the adoption of cucurbit
technologies among Nepalese farmers. The term “Farmer Field Schools” came from the
Indonesian expression Sekolah Lapangan meaning field school. The first field schools were
established in 1989 in Central Java to test and develop field training methods as part of IPM
training of trainers’ course. The training was undertaken by the FAO assisted Indonesian
National IPM Program on rice. The name field school was chosen to reflect the educational
goals, the course took place in the field, and the field conditions defined most of the curriculum,
but real field problems were observed, and analyzed from planting of the crop to harvest. That
4 | P a g e E c o - f r i e n d l y I P M F i e l d S c h o o l , R a m p u r C a m p u s
is the reason farmers’ field schools are becoming the important part of teaching learning
process.
4. Objectives
The objectives by choosing IPM-(S) FFS as disseminating and training approach are to:
1. Strengthen the capacity building of academicians on IPM field school.
2. Demonstrate the proven IPM technology in the vegetable cultivation in the farmers’
field to encourage the use of IPM practices.
3. Increase farmer profit by using appropriate bitter gourd management practices with
minimum disturbance to the environment.
4. Make farmers experts of bitter gourd production in their field.
5. Promote local creativity and local resources.
6. Train the B.Sc.Agriculture students and school administrators in IPM technologies to
increase their skills and knowledge.
7. Reducing the use of chemical pesticides in agricultural practices and encourage the use
of common sense practices in agriculture based on the current information.
5. Participants and Site Selection
Country No. of Participants SFFS Sites Participants Status
Nepal 36 Students and 5
Farmers
Pathology
Experimental Plot,
IAAS.
Farmers: from
VDCs;
Students : IAAS,
Rampur Campus
Agricultural
Extension Agents
Campus
Administrators
6. Fund Raising From Participants and Others
Fund Raised from IAAS, Rampur Campus – Rs. 10000 only.
Fund Raised from AFU, Rampur – Rs. 40000 only.
Fund Raised From Registrar Office, AFU, Chitwan – Rs. 5000 only.
Fund Raised from Students – 26500 only.
5 | P a g e E c o - f r i e n d l y I P M F i e l d S c h o o l , R a m p u r C a m p u s
Total Fund Raised = Rs. 81500 Only.
S.N. Name of the Participants Contact No. Fund Raised / Remarks
1. Aastha Dahal 9841516697 800
2. Anupama Sharma 9845153909 800
3. Arjun Khanal 9815440434 800
4. Arjun Subedi 9845195435 800
5. Ashmit K.C. 9849321337 800
6. Ateet Maharjan 9845206495 700
7. Bhupendra Bhatta 9845530068 800
8. Bikram Poudel 9849425645 800
9. Bindu Upadhyaya 9848679653 800
10. Biplov Oli 9811208812 200
11. Debaka Kandel 9845368137 800
12. Deepak Vitrakoti 9845365534 800
13. Dinesh Khanal 9845721172 800
14. Dipendra Kumar Ayer 9848809382 800
15. Keshav Chandra Bagale 9845480748 800
16. Koshraj Upadhyay 9845584883 800
17. Krishna Dhakal 9849004629 800
18. Laxman Pandey 9845541379 800
19. Lokendra Pandey 9848414748 800
20. Mahesh Kunwar 9845470306 800
21. Mamta Bashyal 9847534129 800
22. Prakash Adhikari 9845211188 000
23. Prava Adhikari 9845390258 800
24. Rabin Giri 9847822931 800
25. Raju Acharya 9848079163 800
26. Sachit Malla 9845218340 800
27. Sagar G.C. 9847108883 800
28. Sameer Singh Barai Magar 9819425840 800
29. Saroj Regmi 9855050305 800
30. Sheetal Aryal 9845394277 800
6 | P a g e E c o - f r i e n d l y I P M F i e l d S c h o o l , R a m p u r C a m p u s
31. Shreesha Upreti 9804095588 800
32. Sunil Dulal 9845415178 800
33. Sunil Joshi 9841615321 800
34. Susmita Khanal 9845090468 800
35. Swati Shrestha 9849098103 800
36. Upasana Dhakal 9845205015 800
37. Bimala Adhikari 9845711363 Farmer
38. Dhan Bahdur K.C. 9845364234 Farmer
39. Shyam Kumar Piya 9851144667 Farmer
40. Sunita Panta 9845654629 Farmer
41. Tara Adhikari 9845611659 Farmer
7. Methodology and Dissemination of Technologies
Field School Site: The whole activity was conducted in the experimental field of Institute of
Agriculture and Animal Science (IAAS), Rampur, Chitwan from 3rd December 2014. The
precise latitude, longitude and altitude as recorded by GPS (global positioning system) of IAAS
are 270 39’ N latitude, 840 24’ E longitude and 228 masl, respectively.
Major Crop of Study: Bitter Gourd (Hybrid)
Demonstration Crops: Cucumber, Summer Squash, Sponge Gourd, Bottle Gourds,
Pumpkin, Bitter Gourds (OP)
The main learning material is the living bitter gourd field and other demonstration plots of
cucurbits. The pedagogic approach of the field school was non-formal education. The basic
principles of the SFFS developed by the trainers were the following:
Grown healthy bitter gourd plants
Monitoring of field (on weekly basis)
Conservation of natural enemies
Make farmers/participants experts in bitter gourd production
Students and farmers were trained directly by the facilitators. However, in most of the FFS,
training is oriented to the extension and research agents, and farmers were trained by the
participants in the practice of what they have learnt. In general, it was a season-long IPM
7 | P a g e E c o - f r i e n d l y I P M F i e l d S c h o o l , R a m p u r C a m p u s
training via SFFS where concepts and theories were discovered and drawn from the field and
linked to previous conceptions and experiences.
The field school consisted of a group of 36 students and 5 farmer participants who were divided
into 5 subgroups of 6-8 each. Farmers were selected on a voluntary basis and agreed to meet
once a week for 4 to 6 hours for field activities. Each subgroup had its own farmers practice
(FP) plots and integrated crop management (IPM/ICM) plots. Beside the FFS plots, the
participatory action research (PAR) plots or demonstration plots were installed for
investigation or validation of research and indigenous technologies/knowledge. The
participants carried out the experiments themselves.
7.1 Spatial Design for SFFS and PAR plots
7.2 Dissemination through IPM plots and Farmers’ plots:
Many technologies from research institutes and through experienced persons were
disseminated through IPM and Farmers’ plots (Table 1).
Table: 1. Field practices and technologies disseminated through IPM plots and Farmers’ plot
in SFFS
S.N. Practices Eco-friendly IPM Field School Specifications
8 | P a g e E c o - f r i e n d l y I P M F i e l d S c h o o l , R a m p u r C a m p u s
IPM Plots (IP) Farmers’ Plot (FP)
1. Area 250 m2 250 m2
2. Varieties Palee-F1 Palee-F1
3. Germination test seeds in line and no. of germinated seeds in 1 week
were counted
4. Land preparation Disc ploughing twice and gentle hand hoe twice
5. Planting Plot/Seed bed Flat
6. Number of seeds per pit 2 seeds/pit
7. Planting spacing PP X RR = 2.25m. X
1.5m.
PP X RR = 4 hands (48
inches) X 3 hands(36
inches)
8. Fertilisation at the time of
sowing
DAP =10 g.
MOP = 5 g.
FYM = 2 Kg. per pit
FYM = 2 Kg. per pit
9. Refilling/thinning 2 weeks after sowing
Gap filling by sowing the seeds soaked for 24
hours
10. Irrigation In every two days, in the evening till the full
germination and thereafter twice in a week
11. Weeding Based on AESA
decision
Based on Farmers’
decision
12. Botanical pesticides Gharelu Bishadi @ 1:8
and applied 25 DAS
none
13. Chemical pesticides Krinoxyl Gold
(Metalaxyl 8%
+Mancozeb 64 %) @ 1.5
g. per liter of water and
applied @ 0.5 liter per
plant or pit for
preventing Damping Off
at 14DAS
Krinoxyl Gold (Metalaxyl
8% +Mancozeb 64 %) @
1.5 g. per liter of water and
applied @ 0.5 liter per
plant or pit for preventing
Damping Off at 14DAS
9 | P a g e E c o - f r i e n d l y I P M F i e l d S c h o o l , R a m p u r C a m p u s
14. Other pest control methods Removing of
dried mulches
from base of
plant to minimize
white grub
attacks and hand
picking of pests
Cuelure- 4 traps
Removing of dried
mulches from base
of plant to
minimize white
grub attacks and
hand picking of
pests
No Cuelure traps
15. Frequency of Applications Based on AESA
decisions
Based on the farmers’
practice
16. Staking 4 weeks after sowing 4 weeks after sowing
17. Pruning Up to 7th layer of leaves
and branches from the
base of plant after 5
weeks after sowing
Not Done
18. Side dressing by fertilizers Bokashi Mal, Jhol Mal
were applied based on
the AESA decisions
Only FYM is applied once
after 8 weeks of sowing
(based on the farmers
decisions)
19. Other Disease and Pest
Problem treatment
Based on AESA
decisions
Based on Farmers
decisions
7.3 Dissemination through PAR plots:
The PAR plots were used to test and validate some technologies through simple trials in the
field school. The PAR plots were of the size 3m. X 2.4 m. = 7.2 m2 each and no. of pits per plot
were 4 and planting distance was same as the IPM plot planting. Most of the management
practices like land preparation, irrigation, weeding, staking, pruning were similar to IPM plot
practices. Total 30 plots of 7.2 m2 each were selected for PAR.
I. 6 plots were planted with other cucurbit crops; Cucumber, Summer Squash, Sponge
Gourd, Bottle Gourds, Pumpkin, Bitter Gourds (OP) as demonstration plot.
II. Two plots were chosen for Hoeing and non-hoeing trial,
10 | P a g e E c o - f r i e n d l y I P M F i e l d S c h o o l , R a m p u r C a m p u s
III. Four plots were chosen for varietal trial and the bitter gourds of the varieties; Top to
Top, White Long, Jhalari (Local) and Palee-F1 were used for varietal trial.
IV. Remaining 18 plots were used for PAR, in which, for fertilizer test; 3 treatments as
FYM, NPK, Combination were replicated 3 times and another test for pesticides; 3
treatments as botanical pesticides, bio pesticides and chemical pesticides were also
replicated 3 times.
V. Bitter gourd of the same variety Palee-F1 was chosen for PAR trial.
7.4 Treatments:
1. FYM: 1500 Kg/ropani (29500 Kg /Ha.)
2. NPK: 10:6:3 Kg NPK/ropani (200:120:60 Kg NPK/Ha.)
3. Combination: 14750 Kg FYM/Ha + 100:60:30 Kg NPK/Ha
Note: due to the unavailability of sufficient fund for operation of the field school, we were
unable to conduct pesticide trial and economic analysis was escaped focusing mainly upon
learning only.
7.5 Weekly followed activities
In Each weekly session following usual activities were conducted:
1. Agro-Ecosystem Analysis (AESA): It was the main activity of the field school. The
AESA included:
Field observation and data collection: Observations were made on the soil
conditions, plant health status (leaf color, withering etc.), plant growth and
development, pest and disease attack symptoms, number and types of pests and
their natural enemies, weather conditions, weed incidence and environmental
conditions around the field.
Recording of the observations and graphical representation of insects,
weather and the growth & development of the crop on a newsprint paper
or brown paper: In a shaded area close to the field, participants reported all
their field information in a chart paper. The plant was represented in its latest
state of growth.
Discussion, analysis and interpretation of field information: Comparisons
were made between the number and type of pests, the number of natural enemies
and the growing stage of the plant. Thus, conclusions were drawn and the field
status was build up.
11 | P a g e E c o - f r i e n d l y I P M F i e l d S c h o o l , R a m p u r C a m p u s
Decision-making: The outcome of the agro-ecosystem analysis process was the
decision-making. The group decided if any pest control measures or other crop
management operations were necessary.
2. Presentation of results and the decisions taken to the entire group: The results of
the field observations and the decision were presented on a plenary session for comment
and improvement.
3. Implementation of previous AESA decisions: Just after field observations and data
collection, participants carried out the decisions made a week ago.
4. Group dynamics exercise/Ice breaker: Group dynamics exercises were to develop
group cohesiveness and problem-solving skills, and encourage collaboration, creativity
and self-discovery among participants.
5. Observation of insect behavior through the “insect zoo” trial: The different trials
set up helped farmers to observe and understand the insects-crop relationships, the
insect pest status and gauge the relative strength of natural controls. 3 insect zoos were
set up.
6. Follow up of PAR plots trials: This activity consisted of data collection from PAR
plots.
7. Special topics: Special topics based on local agricultural problems and conditions
supported the agro-ecosystem analysis by delving more deeply into specific issues
relating to agro-ecology, crop development, IPM principles etc.
8. Evaluation of the day and planning for the following week: Evaluation and
Certification were parts of FFS sessions. Pre and post training tests were organized for
the participants. Farmers or participants with high attendance rates and who lead the
field skill tests were awarded graduation certificates.
8. Other Disseminated Technologies
The technologies disseminated through the Ecofriendly IPM field school were specific.
8.1 Preparations of Eco-friendly IPM Field School
8.1.1 GHARELU BISHADI (घरेल ुबिषादी) or Homemade Pesticide Preparation
1. Cow Urine – 50 ltr.
2. Fresh Sour tasting leaves (Oxalis, Imili, Amaro) – 1 Kg
3. Fresh Bitter tasting leaves (Titepati, Neem, Bakaino, Simali, Asuro) – 1 Kg
4. Hot/ Pirro tasting (Citrus, Tulasi, Bojho, Babari) leaves -1 Kg
12 | P a g e E c o - f r i e n d l y I P M F i e l d S c h o o l , R a m p u r C a m p u s
5. Tarro tasting (Guava, Mango, Papaya)leaves – 1 Kg
6. Bad Smelling (Gandhe, Asare, Banmara) leaves – 1 Kg
7. Pepper/Chilli – Fresh (1 kg) or powder (200 g.)
8. Onion – 0.5 Kg
9. Garlic – 0.5 kg
10. Ginger – 0.5 kg
11. Timur – 100g.
12. Curd – 1 glass
13. Turmeric – 100 g.
14. JIWATU or EM – 2 ltr.
15. Plastic Tank – 60 ltr. Capacity
Note: Chop the leaves in to pieces and make a mixture of all these materials in the plastic tank. Make it
airtight and open the lead in every 2-3 days in the morning for 1 month. Papaya gum or latex can be used
as sticker material. Use those leaves as pesticide raw materials on which the enemy pests don’t feed on.
General Application Tips:
1. For small plantlets – Bishadi : Water = 1:8
2. For Actively Growing Plants – Bishadi : Water = 1:6
3. For Flowering and Yielding Plants – Bishadi : Water = 1:5
Note: Application should be continued in every 7 days till the problem is minimized below economic
threshold level. The ratio can be adjusted if not effective according to above recommended doses.
8.1.2 JHOL Mal (झोल मल)or Homemade Liquid Fertilizer Preparation
1. Fresh Dung – 1 Kg
2. Mustard Cake – 1 Kg
3. Wood Ash – 1 Kg
4. Curd – 1 glass
5. EM or JIWATU – 1 ltr.
6. Cow Urine – 10 ltr.
7. Molasses – 1 kg
8. Plastic Tank – 30 ltr. Capacity
Note: Make a mixture of all these materials in the plastic tank and make it airtight and open the lead in
every 2-3 days in the morning for 1 month.
13 | P a g e E c o - f r i e n d l y I P M F i e l d S c h o o l , R a m p u r C a m p u s
8.1.3 BOKASI Mal (िोकासी मल) or Homemade Bokasi Fertilizer Preparation
1. Bone Meal – 10 Kg.
2. Rice Bran – 10 Kg
3. Oilseed Cake – 10 Kg
4. Molasses – 2 Kg
5. Virgin Soil from Forest – 10 Kg
6. Cow Urine – 20 ltr.
7. Curd – 1 glass
8. EM or JIWATU – 2 ltr.
9. Well Decomposed Cow dung – 35 Kg or Vermicompost – 50 Kg
Note: Dig a pit of 1 m2 on the ground in shady place and spread the plastic at the bottom so that the
nutrients don’t leach out and make mixture of all these materials and turn over the mixture in every
3-5 days in the morning for one month and cover it with jute sacks from above.
8.1.4 Vermicomposting
Vermicompost can be prepared in home using daily household wastes. For this, daily house
hold wastes can be collected in a place and sorting out the organic wastes and inorganic wastes
can be done easily. After that organic wastes can be collected separately. The suitable strains
of earthworm can be procured and then the pit of 15-20 cm. depth is made in the shady place
above the soil surface. Remove the unwanted pathogenic bushes around the pit. The pit is lined
internally with plastic sheet and holes for excess water leaching can be made in the bottom of
the pit. 2-5cm thick gravel layer can be spread at the bottom of the pit over plastic for cooling
effect. Then pseudo stem of banana is chopped and fresh dung is mixed with it in 1:1
proportion. The mixture is placed in pit in two to three layers and in each layer, earthworms
are spread uniformly. After final layer the pit is covered with water soaked jute sacks. The pit
is provided with thatch roof for shading. The water is sprayed over jute sacks in every 2-3 days
and after 3-5 days the household organic wastes can be added in the pit for earthworm feeding
and converting them in to fertilizer. Water canal is made around the pit to prevent from ants.
8.2 General IPM Knowledge
1. Gandhe Jhar (Ageratum conyzoides) harbors mosaic virus inoculums.
2. Papaya gum or latex can be used as sticker material.
3. Hot pepper/chilli and Papaya latex mixture kills Aphids.
4. Planting of Bojho plant near water resources will deter mosquitoes.
5. Turmeric act as healing agent of wounds in animals and plants.
14 | P a g e E c o - f r i e n d l y I P M F i e l d S c h o o l , R a m p u r C a m p u s
Each of these preparations are sufficient for the application in 500 m2 crop area. Preparations will be
ready in 25-30 days for field use. The expiry date of each of these preparations is expected to be 6
months from date of preparation but can be used till 3 years.
9. Results
9.1 Quantitative Results:
9.1.1 Capacity Building
Table 2. Summarization of training human resources and beneficiaries
Program Trainees
Ecofriendly
IPM Field
School, IAAS,
Rampur
Campus
Farmers Students Extension
Officers
Local
Inhabitants
(LI)
Total
Men Women Male Female Male Female Occasional
Presence
2 3 26 10 2 0 43 ±
LI
Total 5 36 2 43 ± LI
Note: Presence of Local Inhabitants (LI) was not regular but often. Of the total trainees (43)
only 13 (30.23 %) women attended the field school (Table 2). Also, in the nearby area farmers
have cultivated Bitter Gourds and other cucurbits but the products from the field school were
more preferred by the consumers rather than the products of the farmer’s field in local area.
It’s because they preferred chemical free products rather than the chemically produced products
and it is very good news that farmers are aware about the health aspects of organic and
inorganic products. We found, among the farmers, that women and men both were involved in
the farming as well.
9.1.2 Technical Results
In this field school, IPM practice was based on the use of more botanical pesticides and organic
fertilizers with least use of chemical fertilizers too. The technologies proposed to the
participants and validated through participatory action research (PAR) trials concerned new
varieties, fertilization, botanical pesticides, chemical pesticides application and timings etc.
9.1.2.1 IPM and FP Plots Results
A. Farmers’ Plots (FP):
15 | P a g e E c o - f r i e n d l y I P M F i e l d S c h o o l , R a m p u r C a m p u s
Total number of Harvests = 11
Total No. of sub-plots = 5
Total Area of IPM Plots = 250 m2
Area of each sub-plots = 50 m2
Total Yield of the Farmers’ Plot = 97.10 Kg. / 250 m2
Average Bitter Gourds Harvested per harvest = 8.83 Kg / Harvest /250 m2
Average Bitter Gourds Yield per sub- plot = 19.42 Kg. / 50 m2
B. IPM Plots (IP):
Total number of Harvests = 11
Total No. of sub-plots = 5
Total Area of IPM Plots = 250 m2
Area of each sun-plots = 50 m2
Total Yield of the IPM Plot = 104.27 Kg. / 250 m2
Average Bitter Gourds Harvested per harvest = 9.48 Kg./ Harvest /250 m2
Average Bitter Gourds Yield per sub-plot = 20.854 Kg. / 50 m2
9.1.2.2 PAR Plots results
The objective of participatory action research (PAR) in this farmers’-students’- field school, is
to provide the participants with technical skills to test new technologies or indigenous
knowledge (IK) and also test those technologies which are not included in the IPM practices.
Any useful new knowledge or technology can be quickly and effectively tested, adapted,
transformed and integrated into viable practices within actual farming systems by
farmers/participants themselves.
9.1.2.2.1 Variety Trials
Plot Sizes: 7.2 m2 each
Table 3: Bitter gourd Yield/Plot (Average) recorded for each variety
Varieties Yield (Grams in 6 Harvests) Observation
Top to Top 1000
16 | P a g e E c o - f r i e n d l y I P M F i e l d S c h o o l , R a m p u r C a m p u s
White Long 700
Jhalari 1350
Palee-F1 2500
9.1.2.2.2 Nutrient Management Trial
Plot Size: 7.2 m2, No. of Treatments = 4 and no. of Replications = 3
Table 4: Bitter gourd Yield/Plot (Average) recorded for each nutrient management
Treatments Yield (Grams in 6 Harvests) Observation
Combination 3600.00
FYM 1350.00
NPK 1166.67
Control 1010.00
9.2 Qualitative results
One of the main outputs of farmer field school training is the non-quantifiable knowledge.Farmers
who have undergone FFS,developed a number of skills which allow them to get the rightability and
the solution for problems. From this training, farmers and students both got understanding of how
the ecology of their fields operate, and by developing their capacity to manage the complex
processes occurring, the facilitator, through FFS, empower the farmer for farming decision-making
and by this way, replace the insecurity with self-confidence. Field schools develop solidarity (even
after the school), self-discovery, group cohesiveness and critical skills within farmers and participant
students. Throughout the training, participants practice some exercises to build group trust and
coherence. After the training, participants can freely identify bitter gourd and differentiate between
insect pests and natural enemies. Pre and post “ballot box” tests were conducted to evaluate the
technical knowledge of participants before and after training respectively.
10. Students’-Farmers’ Day
10.1 Inauguration of Ecofriendly IPM Field School
Inauguration of the Ecofriendly IPM Field School, Rampur Campus was done on Chaitra 29th,
2070 (12 April 2014) in the Pathology Experimental Field. The inauguration program in that
special day was hosted by Ms. Anupama Sharma and formal inauguration was on the
presidency of Mr. Dipendra Kumar Ayer (Coordinator of IPM field school and B.Sc.Ag.
Student) and graced by Mr. Shyam Sundar Panta (Campus Chief, IAAS, Rampur Campus),
17 | P a g e E c o - f r i e n d l y I P M F i e l d S c h o o l , R a m p u r C a m p u s
Mr. Lekhnath Adhikari (Senior Plant Protection Training Officer, Directorate of Agricultural
Training, DOA, Nepal), Mr. Basudev Sapkota (Farmers’ Facilitator), senior officers from
provincial agriculture office, Local Development Office (LDO) with their staffs, IPM District
Farmers Association, Chitwan staffs, members of Local IPM farmers groups and small holder
farmers form nearby villages and also the group of B.Sc. Ag. Students (IPM-SFFS Group). The
program was formally completed after planting the seeds of main crop (bitter gourd) in
triangular fashion and irrigation with the help of rose cane in the pit where seeds were planted.
10.2 Closing Ceremony of Ecofriendly IPM Field School
Date of Ceremony and Exhibition: 16th August, 2014 (31stShrawan 2071)
Organizer: IPM-(S) FFS Group, IAAS, Rampur Campus
Venue of the Exhibition: New Auditorium Hall, IAAS, Rampur Campus
Theme of the Exhibition: “Learning by Doing, Learning by Experience”
Students’-Farmers’ Day was a special day for all the Eco-friendly IPM Field School
participants and is an event accommodated by IPM-(S) FFS Group and organized in
collaborations with IAAS, AFU, District IPM Union and DADO. The field day attracted many
participants from the nearby farmers and reporters of Chitwan district. As shown in the
pictures, attendance at the program was the best with the presence of several IPM farmer
groups, extension workers and curious members who were eager to learn new technologies
applied and disseminated in the field school. About 150 persons were present on that day.
10.2.1 Technologies overviewed
ii. Crops Section
Staking for bitter gourds and other cucurbits, Use of waste materials for agricultural purpose,
Bokashi Mal preparation, Jhol mal preparation, Gharelu Bishadi preparation, Improved
Gothemal preparation, Vermicompost preparation, Disease and pest management practices etc.
iii. Presentation Section
AESA making and analysis, Activities and hardworking by both students and farmers during
field school.
10.2.2 Guest of Honour
In the closing ceremony, Director of Department of Agriculture (DOA), Ministry of Agriculture
Development (MOAD), Nepal, Dr. Yubakdhoj G.C. ([email protected]) participated including the
18 | P a g e E c o - f r i e n d l y I P M F i e l d S c h o o l , R a m p u r C a m p u s
other district level agricultural officers, Local Development Office (LDO) with their staffs, IPM District
Farmers Association, Chitwan staffs. Members of Local IPM farmers groups and small holder farmers
from nearby villages also attended the field day.
10.2.3 IPM-(S) FFS Group
IPM-(S) FFS Group organized the occasion completely. One of the member of IPM Field School (Mr.
Rabin Giri) hosted the program and other trainees displayed and demonstrated the attendees to farmers
plot (FP) and IPM plots (IP) and PAR plots which were intended to serve their needs in the rural areas.
The program was formally inaugurated by lighting the 4 candles representing the four principles of IPM.
Thereafter all the attendees including guest of honor were led to the Field School Plots to demonstrate
what had been done during field school. After returning back to the hall, the movie prepared by the group
was displayed which summarized all the activities involved during this season long IPM field school.
They fully appreciated the students’ and farmers’ made technologies to promote extension services which
is limited as the over-stretched extension service providers finds it hard to adequately serve wide spread
clients. A day long field day provided an opportunity for interactions, discussions and practical exposure
to DADO, MOAD, IAAS, AFU and other farmers groups. Need for development of Interactive voice
mail services and programs like such was noted by the guest of honors and other senior agriculturists.
11. Conclusion and Perspective
Famers Field School is not only to transfer technologies (extension approach) but also useful to
make farmers experts in their own fields. It takes into account all aspects of bittergourd production
management (from seed selection to harvesting techniques and marketing aspects) and thereby make
farmers better and “stronger”. What is learned is a process, not pieces of information. This allows
farmers to face new challenges and the ever-changing dynamics of their fields. At the field school,
were farmers and participant students who observed the field, gathered data, discussed in groups,
analysed experiment results and make decisions about field management. The training participants
has increased their knowledge and practices on integrated mangement practices of economically
important pests. Following this, farmer field school is the tool needed by our farmers. But our
objective was to train the maximum farmers and students combinely in coordination through the
training provided by skilled trainers in this field school. This capacity building training need a
substantial investment which can not be covered by students’ tiffin expense saving fund alone. Once
the capacity building training is put in place, farmer training can be expanded rapidly to cover more
regions and more farmers. Our perspective is a challenge which can not be taken up without
assistance from our financial partners too. The field school tried to share the knowlegde and
19 | P a g e E c o - f r i e n d l y I P M F i e l d S c h o o l , R a m p u r C a m p u s
practices of crop managemet practices and it was focused on learing by doing rather than seeing is
believing.
12. Recommendation
After the completition of this field school, we observed that the management cost of the IPM practice
is somewhat higher in initial stages but it will be less as compared to the chemical methods on the
long run. The pest problem of bitter gourds can be minimized to a economic level through the IPM
techniques without any loss to the human health and environment. So farmers can apply above
mentioned IPM techniques for sustainable bitter gourd cultivation.
Thank You !!!
20 | P a g e E c o - f r i e n d l y I P M F i e l d S c h o o l , R a m p u r C a m p u s
13. Major Pest of Bitter Gourd
Fig: Bitter Gourd Pest Problem
Fruit Fly Damage
21 | P a g e E c o - f r i e n d l y I P M F i e l d S c h o o l , R a m p u r C a m p u s
14. Snapshots of Eco-friendly IPM Field School
Field Day Field Day
Regular Class AESA Preparation
It’s fun time Field Visit by Specialists
22 | P a g e E c o - f r i e n d l y I P M F i e l d S c h o o l , R a m p u r C a m p u s
IPM Tour IPM Tour
Mr. Lekhnath Adhikari, IPM Facilitator
24 | P a g e E c o - f r i e n d l y I P M F i e l d S c h o o l , R a m p u r C a m p u s
15. References
Aggrey, O.A. 2011. Report of the Farmers Field day at Wambugu ATC, NAFIS Section
education methods. Global IPM Facility Secretariat.
Davis, K., E. Nkonya, E. Kato, D. A. Mekonnen, M. Odendo, R. Miiro and J. Nkuba. 2010. Impact of
farmer field schools on agricultural productivity and poverty in East Africa. IFPRI.
Gbaguidi, B. 2001. Farmer Field School: Activities Report 2000-2001, Draft. PRONAF Project, Africa
Bishwakarma, B.K., B.K. Dhital, R. Bhandari, Y.D. G.C., R.B. Paneru, B. R. Khadge. 2012.
Major Insect Pest and their Management in Vegetable Crops; A Training Manual,
HELVETAS, Nepal.
http://celkau.in/Crops/Vegetables/Bittergourd/bittergourd.aspx (date of download: 21st Nov. 2014)
Kevin, Gallagher. Farmers Field Schools (FFS) : A group extension process based on Adult non-formal
Khisa, G. 2004. Farmers Field School. Methodology, Training Of of Trainers Manual, First Edition.
Mweri, B. A. M., C.D.A. Mombasaand, K. S. Godrick. 2001. Report of the training of trainers course on
farmers field school methodology for Kari’s soil management and legume research network
project.2001.Kenya agricultural research institute, Nairobi, Kenya.
Stathers, T. 2005. Promotion of of Sustainable Sweet potato Production and Post-Harvest Management
Through Farmer Field Schools In and Post-Harvest Management through Farmer Field Schools
in East Africa, Final Technical Report.
The IPM Training Program under the Department of the Non-Formal Education. 2000. Thai Education
Foundation, The Ministry of Education
Vegetable Farming Technology. 2012. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Government of Nepal