IMPACT OF FARMER FIELD SCHOOL IN TOMATO

S. George and M.R. Hegde

Division of Extension and Training, Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Hessaraghatta

Lake Post, Banglore-560089

Abstract

Farmers field schools have emerged as effective transfer of technology tools for promoting IPM
packages, as the experience shows in different countries. In this direction an effort was made by the
Division of Extension and Training, Indian Institute of Horticultural Research (IIHR), Bangalore to
popularize the IPM package developed by IIHR through Farmer Field School (FFS). A
predominantly tomato growing village called Agrahara in Bangalore north taluk of Bangalore Rural
district was selected for implementation of FFS. Before taking up the FFS, Participatory Rural
Appraisal (PRA) was taken up by a team of scientists, to identify the constraints in production of
tomato and the gap in adoption of IPM technologies in tomato. The study revealed that IPM
package was not adopted by majority of the farmers due to various reasons. The important among
them being the non- availability of critical inputs locally for adoption of IPM package and farmers
had not understood the philosophy of IPM. They revert back to chemical methods of pest and disease
control because it gives knock down effect and shows immediate results. In order to make them adopt
the IPM package, FFS was initiated with the objective of convincing the farmers about the
philosophy of IPM; facilitating the identification and effective management of pest and diseases. For
this purpose an IPM team was constituted with scientists from the divisions of plant pathology,
entomology, vegetable crops, soil science and agricultural extension. The paper focuses on the
impact of IPM in terms of reduction in pest and disease levels, effect on level of usage of chemicals
and reduction in the cost of cultivation compared to farmer’s practice. The impact in terms of change
in knowledge and attitude to facilitate adoption of IPM practices is also discussed in the paper.
Key Words: IPM, FFS, tomato, Knowledge, Impact
Introduction
With increasing consumer awareness of pesticide residue problems in agricultural and
horticultural crops, it has become imperative on the part of scientists, extension workers and
farmers to practice farming in a way that is less dependent on chemical pesticides and
fungicides. Research institutes have developed many packages that are more eco friendly and
less dependent on chemical pesticides. One such package is the “Integrated Pest
Management practices in tomato” developed by Indian Institute of Horticultural Research
(IIHR), Bangalore. This package has proved its effectives in different farmers fields. The
need of the hour is to promote such technologies among farmers. To popularize the package
among farmers and to make it more sustainable, the farmers have to be taught and trained in
a way that they feel part of the programme. There are many innovative ways of promoting
IPM. One such innovative, effective, economical , eco-friendly and safe approach is Farmers
Field School (FFS). FFS approach utilizes participatory methods to help farmers develop
their analytical skills, critical thinking, promote creativity, and help them to make better
decisions (Kenmore 1997). With this objective in mind Farmers field school was
implemented in a predominantly tomato growing village viz. Agrahara in Bangalore rural
district of Karnataka state.

Methodology
A multidisciplinary team of scientists from the field of extension education, vegetable
crops, entomology and pathology was formed to conduct the FFS. Fifteen farmers were
selected for the programme. The selected farmers were tomato growers with more than 10
years of experience. They were growing hybrid tomatoes with the seedlings being purchased
from nursery. The team made weekly visits to farmers fields and had interaction with
farmers on-farm at different stages of crop growth. The nurserymen were also involved in
the first few contact classes and trained to produce healthy seedlings . For comparison
purpose 15 farmers from neighbouring village were selected who had been following
chemical control (taken as farmers practice). Participant farmers were involved in collecting
the data on various pest and disease incidence parameters and impact. Care was taken to
involve farmers at each stage of the programme implementation. Farmers noted down all the
practices and their observation in their field note book. Farmers took keen interest during all
the classes, as the classes were conducted in the field itself. The team of scientists used to
visit one field at weekly interval and farmers used to discuss their problems there in the field
itself with the live specimen. The specimen was discussed along with its symptoms and their
remedy. Farmers noted down all this in their notebooks after the discussion. So they also
enjoyed the process of learning as it was a two way process. Farmers gave their ideas at each
and every stage. Perceived impact of technologies was identified through ranking technology
(Ray and Mondal, 2004).

The IPM package: The IPM package promoted during the process included following
components: Land preparation was done with 25 tonnes of FYM and 1 tone of FYM enriched
with Trichoderma harzianum; transplanting 25 day old tomato and 50 day old marigold
seedling simultaneously in a pattern of one row of marigold for every 16 row of tomato, at
15 days after planting (DAP), spraying with one systemic insecticide (imidachlorpid),
incorporation of neem cake @100 kg/acre-2 times, application of poison bait, Nuclear
Polyhedrosis Virus (Ha NPV) thrice at 28, 35 and 42 days after transplanting, Neem seed
kernal extract (NSKE) or neem soap (3 times) and need based 1-2 fungicides and
insecticides.

Results and discussion:

Impact of IPM on pest and disease incidence and yield: The results indicated that there
was marked reduction in the frequency of application of insecticide and fungicide as seen in
Table 1. The t test values shows that there is significant difference on different parameters
between the IPM and non-IPM plots. The frequency of insecticide spray came down to 2.5
(IPM plots) from 8.5 times per crop in farmers practice. Frequency of fungicides came down
to 3 as compared to 4.5 in farmer practice. The incidence of tomato spotted wilt virus
(TSWV) was 7.6 % in IPM compared to 25.6 % in farmers practice. The incidence of fruit
borer (Helicoverpa armigera) came down to 7.8 % in IPM compared to 21.88 % in farmers
practice. The incidence of wilt was nil as farmers were growing wilt resistant varieties. The
incidence of blight (early blight by Alternaria solani and late blight by Phythophthora
infestans) reduced from 7.79 % to 4 per cent. The marketable yield obtained was 51.3 t/ha in
IPM plots compared to 44.6 t/ha in farmers practice. The results indicate that when farmers
adopt IPM package, they can bring down the quantum of chemicals used. At the same time
the pest and disease incidence is effectively managed along with production of pesticide
residue free tomato which is safe to environment and the consumers health.

Table 1. Performance of IPM field as against Non IPM in tomato (n=15)

Sl. Particulars IPM Non -IPM t values
No.
1 Frequency of insecticides (No. of 2.50 8.50 13.6**
times)
2 Frequency of fungicides (No. of 3.0 4.50 7.13**
times)
3 Leaf miner in main field (% leaf 8.50 26.61 14.76**
affected)
4 Tomato spotted wilt virus (TOSPO 7.7 16.4 7.73**
%)
5 Fruit borer (% fruit damaged) 7.75 21.88 9.36**
6 Blight (% leaf affected) 4.00 7.79 4.68**
7 Marketable Yield (Hybrid- 51.3 44.6 10.39**
Abhinava) (t/ha)**
 ** Highly significant

Farmers Perceived impact of IPM technology components : At the end of the FFS
farmers were asked to evaluate different IPM technology components based on their merits in
a group meeting . The technology components along with their rank scores are depicted in the
Table 2. Some of the practices like application of Trichoderma in nursery and main field, use
of NPV and marigold traps, application of neem seed kernal extract/ neem soap and
application of neem cake scored high rank. Advantages of technology components were also
listed by farmers. According to them application of Trichoderma in nursery and mainfield
resulted in reduction in nursery mortality and low incidence of wilt in main field. Thus the
farmers could save on seed cost which is very high for hybrids by using less seed rate.
Application of neem seed kernal extract was good because it caused no health hazard and the
material was locally available and cheaper compared to pesticides. In addition there was no
fear of pest resurgence. Application of neem cake effectively controlled the leaf miner in
addition to providing nutrient to plants. Use of systemic insecticide (Imidachlorpid) in
nursery , main field resulted in less incidence of pests in nursery, very less incidence of leaf
miner in main field, preplanned spray, without waiting for the pests and reduction of
seedling mortality in main field. Use of NPV and marigold trap was good because it caused
no health hazard while spraying and low incidence of borer, saving in cost on insecticides.
Stacking and poison bait- Larvae were exposed as they did not have place to hide and
Poison bait could kill even big size larvae.

Table 2: Ranking of IPM technology components based on impact perceived by

farmers
Sl. IPM Technology Frequency (n) Rank Impact
Very High Not
components score category
high (2) much
(n* rank
(3) (1)
value)
1 Trichoderma application in 11 4 0 45 I
nursery and mainfield
2 Use of Neem seed kernal 8 7 0 38 II
extract or neem soap
3 Use of Neem cake 4 11 0 34 V
 4 Use of systemic insecticide 6 9 0 36 IV
(Imidachlorpid) in nursery ,
main field

5 Use of Ha NPV 8 7 0 38 II
6 Use of marigold trap 6 5 2 30 VI
7 Removal of lower disease 4 4 7 27 VII
affected leaves

Farmers who adopted IPM package in tomato have understood various advantages and
benefits of using IPM. These benefits range from cost reduction , chemical usage reduction,
better yield and economics for individual farmers along with social and environmental
benefits and reduction of health hazard to farmer worker and consumer of tomato. Such huge
benefits as perceived by technology adopter will have large impact on society, environment
and human health.

Change in knowledge
To measure the impact of FFS a pre and post knowledge test evaluation was done for the
15 participant farmers. The results are depicted in table 3. The results indicate that there is
significant difference in knowledge levels before and after implementation of the programme.
The overall score shows that farmers level of knowledge increased significantly from 35.7 %
before the FFS to 82.2 % after the FFS. This shows that there is good improvement in the
knowledge level of farmers.
Change in acquisition, assimilation and utilization information of IPM resulted in change in
knowledge of tomato growers. Continuous exchange of information, learning and
assimilation of knowledge on various components of IPM package has helped farmers for
better adoption and continuing adoption of innovations. This result in better adoption of
other improved practices also among participants of FFS.
Table3. Change in knowledge of participant farmers before an after FFS (n=15)
Sl. Knowledge areas Maximum Score before FFS Score after
Possible Score FFS
1 Preparation of nursery 30 10 (33.3) 25 (83.3)
2 Pests of nursery 45 16 (35.5) 35 (77.7)
3 Control measures for nursery 45 13 (28.8) 40 (88.8)
pests
4 Preparation of main field 30 11 (36.6) 30 (100)
 5 Preparation of enriched FYM 15 2 (13.3) 15 (100)
6 Preparation on NSKE 15 1 (6.6) 15 (100)
7 Pests of tomato 75 20 (26.6) 52 (69.3)
8 Diseases of tomato 60 25 (41.6) 48 (80)
9 Control measures for pests 75 25 (33.3) 63 (84)
10 Control measures for diseases 60 40 (66.6) 50 (83.3)
Total score 450 161 370
Overall Percentage score 35.7 % 82.2 %
* Percentage figures given in parentheses

Partial budget analysis: Partial budget analysis revealed that by following IPM practices in
tomato farmers can increase their net income to the level of Rs 26,032/- per ha (Table 4 ) .
Hence adoption of IPM practices, if followed properly is more profitable.
Despite use of few inputs additionally and extra cost incurred, the net profit of
adoption of IPM is more than farmer practice of pest and disease management. Due to
reduction in quantity of chemical pesticides and fungicides in IPM practice, along with
economic benefits, social and environmental benefits were also reaped by the IPM adopters.
Table 4. Partial budget analysis (for IPM in tomato per ha)
Debit (Rs/ha) Credit (Rs./ha)
Increase in costs Decrease in cost
Due to Trichoderma 300 Saving in cost
application
Neem Cake 2350 Insecticides 4800
NPV 1395 Fungicides 1800
Imidachlorpid 523
Marigold 200
Foliar nutrition (Vegetable 800
special)
Poison bait 1500 Total decrease in cost 6,600
Total increase in cost 7368 Increase in returns
Decrease in returns - Increase in marketable yield (6.7 26,800
tonne)*
A. Total increase cost and 7368 B. Total reduced costs and increased 33,400
reduced return returns
Net change in income / loss (B-A) =Rs 26,032/-
* Assuming the Sale rate of tomato @Rs 4 /kg which is the average price of tomato during
rabi season

Conclusion:
The Farmer field school approach is found to be effective in promoting IPM package
among farmers. Due to FFS farmers have increased their knowledge level and developed
better positive attitude about advantages of IPM package. In addition yield could also be
increased. Hence multidisciplinary team approach in FFS is highly beneficial in terms of
promoting IPM for bringing economic benefits to the farmers and enhancing social and
environmental benefits among farming community. When farmers are involved in the
programme the programme can be made sustainable.

References:
Kenmore, P.E. “ A perspective on IPM”. Centre of Information on Low External Input and
sustainable Agriculture (LEISA) Newsletter No. 13, 1997.
Ray,G.L. and Mondal, S. (2004). Research methods in social sciences and extension
education. Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi.