Technology Transfer Through
Farmer Field School in Indonesia
Aunu Rauf1, Nugroho Wienarto2, BM Shepard3, GR
Carner3, MD Hammig3, EP Benson3, G Schnabel3
1
Bogor Agricultural University - Indonesia
2 FIELD Indonesia Foundation - Indonesia
3 Clemson University - USA
Outline of Presentation
 History of Farmer Field School
 Process of IPM Farmer Field School
 FFS Follow-up Activities
 Some Impact Studies
 Closing Remarks
History of Farmer Field School
Outbreak of BPH during 1970-1980s
 Prophylactic, calendarbased spraying
 Heavy subsidy on
pesticides (80%)
History of Farmer Field School
IPM Policy
 Presidential Decree (1986) banned
the use of 57 pesticide formulation
in rice production
 Phased-out of pesticide subsidies
 Established IPM training for farmers
(Farmer Field School)
History Farmer Field School
What is a Farmer Field School
 FFS is is a group extension method based on adult
education program that utilizes discovery learning and
participatory techniques.
 Composed of groups of 25-30 farmers who meet
regularly during the course of the growing seasons.
 FFS aims to increase the capacity of groups of farmers
to carry out experiments in their own fields.
 The facilitator is called a field leader (FL). The FLs are
trained in both technology and facilitation skill in a
program called a Training of Trainers (TOT).
History of Farmer Field School
Four Major Principles of IPM FFS

Grow a healthy crop
o Resistant varieties, proper fertilzers, water and soil management,
etc
o Healthy crop can resist diseases and compensate for damage

Observe fields regularly
o To assess crop development, diseases, insect pest population, and
natural enemies.

Conserve natural enemies of crop pests
o Abundance of natural enemies in the field


Avoid the use of pesticides that kill natural enemies
Farmers understand ecology and become experts in their own field

Make decisions based on observations and analysis of the field
situation
Process of Farmer Field School
Agroecosystem Analysis
 Field visit / field observations
o Go to the field in subgroups
(5 farmers per subgroup)
o Choose 10 plants randomly
o Observe plant, pests, natural
enemies, diseases, weeds,
weather etc
Process of Farmer Field School
Agroecosystem Analysis
 Drawing
 Each subgroup presents
their observations and
analysis in drawing.
o plant
o weather
o disease symptom
o pests
o natural enemies
o water level
Process of Farmer Field School
Agroecosystem Analysis
 Presentation and Discussion
 Each subgroup presents
their analysis
 Group discussion
 Decision about pest control
measure is made
 Facilitator will facilitate the
discussion
Process of Farmer Field School
Supporting IPM Field Studies
 IPM validation trials
 IPM Practices vs Farmer
Practices
 Conducted on 1000 m2
plot, each 500 m2
Process of Farmer Field School
Supporting IPM Field Studies
Crop compensation
oTo demonstrate that
crop plants can
compensate for some
damage by producing
new leaves or shoots
Process of Farmer Field School
Supporting IPM Field Studies
 Field cages
o To demonstrate how
natural enemies keep pest
population under control
Process of Farmer Field School
Supporting IPM Field Studies
 Plastic bagging
o To demonstrate how
enclosing cacao pod with
the pastic bag can prevent
attack from pod borer
Process of Farmer Field School
Supporting IPM Field Studies
 Side-grafting
o Farmers learn how to
make a side-grafting on
cacao
Process of Farmer Field School
Supporting IPM Field Studies
 Use of insect traps
o Farmers learn how to
monitor insect population
using traps
Process of Farmer Field School
Supporting IPM Field Studies
 Insect zoo
o To study life cycle of insects
o To study feeding behavior of
insects
o To study predator and
parasitoids
Process of Farmer Field School
Group Dynamics
 To foster cooperation and
 A variety of team building
togetherness within the group
games and exercises employed  To sharpen farmer communication
during the training
and organizing skills
Process of Farmer Field School
Ballot Box
 FFS starts with a ballot-box pretest
of knowledge and ends with a
posttest
 A simple tool to measure the level
of a farmer’s knowledge on an
agroecosystem
 Questions focus on:
 recognition of pests, natural
enemies, diseases
 recognition of damage from
pests and diseases
 management of pests and diseases
 etc
Process of Farmer Field School
Field Day
 At the end of FFS season
 To show the results of FFS to
other farmers, agricultural staff,
local government officials.
o IPM plot vs Farmer Practice
plot
o Other field experiments
o Insect zoo (pests and natural
enemies)
Follow-up Activities
Farmer-to-Farmer FFS
 One-week training is conducted
for farmer trainers prior to
organize farmer-led FFS;
 Curriculum of TOT includes
facilitation and management
skills for organizing an FFS, and
review and discuss background
of FFS topics, e.g. agroecosystem analysis.
 Farmer-to-Farmer FFS are
implemented in the same way,
except the trainers are farmers.
 Key elements in the
development of IPM over large
areas.
Follow-up Activities
Farmer IPM Field Studies

To develop farmer’s
own knowledge and
technologies;

To develop a capacity
to find an answer/proof
or to test a method;

To develop farmer’s
capacity on research
and its networking with
research-related
institutions.
 Making plant extracts for botanical
pesticides and testing the effectiveness
Follow-up Activities
Farmer IPM Field Studies
 Study on effects of plastic mulch
 Study on effects of bamboo staking
in potatoes
Follow-up Activities
Farmer IPM Field Studies
 Production and application of Trichoderma
Development of FFS
•
Modified to train farmers of other crops
•
The training methodology was not changed.
 FFS - IPM
 Food crops
 Palawija crops
 Vegetable crops
 Fruit crops
 Industrial crops
• FFS-ICM
 Rice
 Soybean
 Corn
• FFS – GAP
• FFS - Climate
Funding Sources
 Self financed FFS
 District government
 Pronvincial government
 Central government
 World Bank
 USAID
 ADB
 ACIAR
 etc
Some Impact Studies
FFS in Rice
SEARCA (1999):
 Use of insecticides was 35% less for FFS farmers than
for non-FFS farmers
 Yield of rice was 7.9 % higher for FFS farmers than for
non-FFS farmers
 FFS farmers spent 21% less on pesticides, 12% more
on fertilizers and 4% more on labor than non-FFS farmers
 FFS farmers had 5% lower production costs than
non-FFS farmers
 FFS farmers had higher knowledge scores on pests,
natural enemies and pesticides than non-FFS farmers.
Some Impact Studies
FFS in Rice
Feder et al 2003:
 Yields decreased from 1991-1999 for FFS farmers and non-FFS
farmers
 Pesticide expenditure increased for FFS farmers and non-FFS
farmers
 No significant effect of training on the change in yield or pesticide
expenditure between FFS farmers and non-FFS farmers
Some Impact Studies
FFS in Rice
Yamazaki S and Resosudarmo BP (2006)
[Utilizing the same data set as Feder et al (2004)]
 Substantial positive impacts on agricultural productivities by the
FFS for both farmers who participated in the FFS and those who
indirectly obtained the new knowledge
 Farmers who participated in the FFS and those who indirectly
obtained the new knowledge reduced their spending on pesticides
and conducted this practice over time
 Farmers’ performance is positively-spatially correlated between
neighbors in the same village. This positively supports the
existence of farmer-to-farmer knowledge diffusion.
Some Impact Studies
FFS in Rice
Mariyono J (2009):
 Performance of FFS implementation was not as good as expected
 On average, the proportion of highly satisfactory FFS was only 32%
 Efforts to improve the performance of FFS implementation
resulted in an increase in the number of highly satisfactory FFSs
(50%) by the end of the project
 The impact of IPM technology on the reduction in pesticide use
was significantly dependent on the performance of the FFS
 The better performance of the FFSs, the higher the level of rice
production and the lower the level of pesticide use
Some Impact Studies
FFS in Vegetables
Londe, Hammig, Rauf (1999):
 The coefficient for IPM training (FFS) were positive and highly
significant suggesting the overall effectiveness of training to be
positive
 Farmers with IPM training were most likely to adopt sustainable
practices.
Some Impact Studies
FFS in Estate Crops
Hutabarat et al. (2004):
 IPM farmers had better ability to recognize insect natural enemies.
 IPM farmers earned a higher profit than non-IPM farmers
 IPM farmers used less pesticides as opposed to non-IPM farmers
Closing Remarks
 Extending FFS program to other crops and activities
should be accompanied by the quality assurance of its
implementation