Lessons Learnt from Application of Farmer Field School Approach for Dissemination of Technologies to Seed Potato Farmers in Sri Lanka
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55121/nc.v2i1.28Keywords:
Effective, Farmer Field School, Group Dynamic, Social Participation, Seed Potato FarmingAbstract
This study aims to determine the effectiveness of the Farmer Field School Approach in disseminating technologies for improving Farmers’ knowledge and adoption of cultivation practices related to seed potato cultivations in Sri Lanka. The stratified purposive sampling technique was performed to select 40 seed potato farmers who participated in FFS programs (FFS group) and another 40 farmers who were not attended the same (NFFS Group) living in 5 Agricultural Instructor (AI) ranges in the Kandy district in Sri Lanka. A cross-sectional field survey was administrated using pretested questionnaire followed by focus group discussions to collect primary data on socio-economic status, knowledge and adoption level, yield and cost of production, etc., and also farmers’ attitude towards the FFS approach on 5 dimensions (Effectiveness, Efficiency, Relevance, Impact, Sustainability). The qualitative parameters of the above were measured using 5 points Likert scales and developing indexes and applying descriptive analysis, hypothesis testing, and inferential analysis using the Ordered Logistic Regression model to measure variables and explain the relationship among the tested parameters using SPSS statistical package.
A significant difference was observed between FFS and NFFS seed potato growers in terms of knowledge, field practices adoption, land productivity, and production cost. The Ordered Logistic Regression model findings reveal that the model as a whole fit significantly at a 95% confidence level. Pseudo R square expresses that 26.75 % proportion of the variance in adoption level significantly improved the recommended potato cultivation practices as explained by seven independent variables (Education at 2 levels, Experience, Index of Social Participation, Group dynamic, Satisfaction, and Sustainability). Hence, this study proved that the Farmer Field School approach is effective as an agricultural innovation and dissemination platform in all dimensions for significantly improving farmers’ Knowledge and adoption level of cultivation practices leading to increased productivity and profitability.
References
[1] Agricultural statistical information on Highland crops. http://www.statistics.gov.lk/Agriculture/StaticalInformation/HighlandCrops/2015
[2] Department of Census and Statistics, 2017. Agricultural statistical information on Highland crops. http://www.statistics.gov.lk/Agriculture/StaticalInformation/HighlandCrops/2017
[3] Babu AGC, Merz U., 2011. First Confirmed Report of Powdery Scab Caused by Spongospora subterranea f. sp. subterranea on Potato in Sri Lanka. Plant Dis. 2011 Aug;95(8):1033. DOI:10.1094/PDIS-03-11-0162. PMID: 30732073. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30732073/
[4] Wickramasinghe, W. and Jayasooriya, C.2012., Multiple effects and impact of a small farmer (FFS-based) seed potato production in Badulla district. Colombo: HARTI.10-15.
[5] Food and Agriculture, 2015. A training package:Introducing the farm business school by Kahan, D. (ed) (also available at http://www.fao.org/nr/research-extension-systems/res-home/news/detail/en/c/317325
[6] Bunyatta, D. K., & Mureiti, J. G., 2010. Farmer Field School As An Effective Approach In Empowerment of Gender Participation, Decision Making And Diffusion of Soil And Crop Management Technologies Among Small Scale Tea smallholders Trans-Nzoia District, Kenya.
[7] Rola, A. C., Provido, Z. S., Olanday, M. O., Paraguasi, F. P., Sirue, A. S., Espadon, M. A.,& Hupeda, S. P., 1998. Making tea smallholders better decision-makers through the farmer field school.
[8] Hounkonnou, D., Offei, S. K., Röling, N. G., Tossou, R., Van Huis, A., Struik, P. C., & Wienk, J. F., 2004. Diagnostic studies: a research phase in the Convergence of Sciences programme.
[9] Food and Agriculture, 2020. FAO/GEF Project on rehabilitation of degraded agricultural lands in Kandy, Badulla and Nuwara Eliya Districts in the Central Highlands GCP/SRL/063/GFF https://sricat.net/index.php/en/projects.
[10] Waddington H. and White H., 2014. Farmer field schools From agricultural extension to adult education, Systematic Review Summary 1. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.4073/CSR.2014.6
[11] Anandajayasekeram, P., Davis K. and Sindu W., 2007 Farmer Field Schools: An Alternative to Existing Extension Systems? Experience from Eastern and Southern Africa, Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 14(1).
[12] Wiersma, W.,1994 Research Methods in Education-An Introduction. 6th Edition. Allyn Bacon Inc ISBN 10: 0205156541ISBN 13: 9780205156542
[13] Saravanan R. and Veerabhadraiah V., 2003. Clientele satisfaction and their willingness to pay for Public and Private Agricultural Extension Services', Tropical Agricultural Research, 87-97.
[14] Amarathunga, M.K.S.L.D.,2019. Public Private Partnership Extension Model for Tea Smallholding sector. text book, Publisher Scholars press, International Book Marketing service Ltd 17, Meldrum, street, Beau Bassein, 71569, Mauritius, 1-263.
[15] Cronbach, L.J.,1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests, Available at Psychometrical 16 (3), 297-334 (Accessed: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555).
[16] Park, S.Y., 2009 An Analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model in Understanding University Students Behavioral Intention to Use E-Learning. Educational Technology and Society, 12, 150-162.
[17] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark (2011). Evaluation of the Farmer Field School Approach in the Agriculture Sector Programme Support Phase II, Bangladesh. ISBN: 978-87-7087-592-9.
[18] Davis,K.,Nkonya,E.,Ayalew,D.,&Kato,E. (2009).AssessingtheImpactofaFarmerField SchoolsProjectinEastAfrica.InProceedingsof the25thAIAEEAnnualMeeting,PuertoRico, 136,ÁVol.147.
[19] Waddington H, White H, Snilstveit B, Hombrados J, Vojtkova M, Phillips D, Davies P, 2014 Farmer Field Schools for Improving Farming Practices and Farmer Outcomes: A Systematic Review. https://doi.org/10.4073/CSR.2014.6
[20] Bamunuarachchi, B.A.D.S., Hitihamu, S., Susila Lurdu M.D., 2019, Research Report No.: 227 on Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) in Sri Lanka:Status, Challenges and Policy Interventions, Colombo: HARTI.19-32.
[21] Rola, A. C., Provido, Z. S., Olanday, M. O., Paraguasi, F. P., Sirue, A. S., Espadon, M. A.,& Hupeda, S. P. (1998). Making tea smallholders better decision-makers through the farmer
[22] Feaster, J. G., 1968. Measurement and determinants of innovativeness among primitive agriculturists. Rural Sociology, 33(3), 339-348.
[23] Shinde, P. S., Bhople, P. P., & Valekar, R. B. (2000). Factors associated with knowledge status of Rabi jowar in Maharashtra state. Maharashtra Journal of Extension Education, 19, 202-205.
[24] Mungai, P.C., Mwagi, G. O., Onyango, C. K., Mureithi, J. G., 2003. Effectiveness of farmer field school approach on technology adoption and empowerment of tea smallholders: A case of farmer groups in Kisii District, Kenya. In Soil Science Society of East Africa (SSSEA), Annual Conference, 21, Nairobi (Kenya), 1-5 Dec 2003. Soil Science Society of East Africa.
[25] Max, N. A. 2015. Effect of Tea smallholders Socio-economic Towards Adoption Level of Agricultural Technology in Sigi Regency Indonesia. Journal of Applied Sciences, 15: 826-830.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 M.K.S.L.D. Amarathunga, U.S.G. Dilshan, A.M.C. Amarakoon, K.P. Somachandra
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.