Impact of IPM Extension for Smallholder Farmers in the Tropics

14 Pages·2009·2.12 MB·English

Chapter8
Impact of IPM Extension for Smallholder
Farmers in the Tropics
JefferyW.Bentley
Abstract Inrecentyears,IPMextensioncametomeanFFS(farmerfieldschool).
Most studies of FFS pilot projects suggest that IPM helps farmers to lower costs
or to increase yields, although the farmers pass on little of their new knowledge
to their neighbours,which limits the cost-effectivenessof FFS. Some quantitative
studiesofFFSsuggestthatthereisactuallylittle overallimpactofFFSprograms.
FFS may be better suited to stimulating collaborative research with farmers than
forextensionitself.Inotherwords,FFSmayhelptoperfecttheextensionmessage
(the technology)which can then be communicatedwith other methods. There are
manyalternativeextensionmethodsavailable,althoughtheir impactneedsfurther
study.Thechallengeisto find methodsthatdeliverqualityandquantitymessages
(reachingalargeaudiencewithanappropriate,understandablemessage).
Keywords IPM·extension·FFS·smallholderfarming
8.1 Introduction
Theimpactofextensiondependsonanappropriatemessage,deliveredwithanun-
derstandableextensionmethod,althoughitisnotalwaysthatsimple.Inthescramble
to adopt Bt cotton in Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh, India, farmers may be
ledtoplantgeneticallymodifiedcottonbecauseofclevermarketing.Somefarmers
planted a new cotton seed after being taken to the field of an influential farmer,
and givenlunch(Stone 2007).In anotherexperience,a groupof Bolivian farmers
expressed an increased demand for growing quinoa after being given a piece of
quinoacakeatatechnologyfair(Bentleyetal.2007).
However,adoptionfuelledonlybyconvincingextensionmessagesmaybeshort
lived. In the cotton exampleabove,farmers often abandonthe new variety after a
single planting (Stone 2007). In the 1990s in Colombia, researchers insisted that
extensionists teach coffee farmers to culture the fungus Beauveria bassiana (Bb)
J.W.Bentley(B)
AgriculturalAnthropologist,InternationalConsultant,Casilla2695,Cochabamba,Bolivia
e-mail:[email protected]
R.Peshin,A.K.Dhawan(eds.),IntegratedPestManagement:Dissemination 333
andImpact,DOI10.1007/978-1-4020-8990-9 8,
(cid:2)C SpringerScience+BusinessMediaB.V. 2009
334 J.W.Bentley
tocontrolthecoffeeberryborer.Anation-widenetworkofdedicatedextensionists
taughtthefarmerstoboilrice,toplaceitinusedrumbottles,andtheninoculateit
with Bb, with which they would later prepare a solution to spray on their groves.
The farmers adopted, and then abandoned the technology because they could not
getenoughrumbottles,andcouldnotkeepthericemediumsterileintheirkitchens,
plusthewholeoperationwastoomuchwork,andtookuptoomuchspace(Bentley
andBaker2002).
In2003IsawsomeexcellentextensionistsinNicaragua,tryingtoteachfarmers
tocalculatethepercentagesofpestincidences,usingacomplexpestsamplingchart
dividedinto about625squaresof data(personalobservation).Thecharthadrows
of sampling sites and columns for different pests. It arguably offered a complete
pictureofallthepestsanddiseasesincoffee,butittook20peopletwohours(i.e.40
person-hours)to gather the data. Even the agronomists had to use a calculator to
figureoutallthepercentages.Thesamplingscheme“worked”butitdemandedtoo
much time, and math skills. The sampling method was never adopted, even after
persistentextensionefforts.
While there is nota direct,mechanicalrelationshipbetweenextensionmethod,
messageandimpactof aprogram,methodandmessagestill haveto betakeninto
account.InrecentyearstheIPMmessagehasbeenlinkedwithoneparticularexten-
sionstyle:farmerfieldschools,eventhoughIPMcanbetaughtwithothermethods,
andFFScanbeusedforothermessages.
8.2 EvaluationofFarmerFieldSchools
Farmer field schools (FFS) became a kind of standard in IPM extension after the
late1980s,eventhoughtheyarenowbeingquestioned.Inspiteofthegreatinterest
they enjoyed, the evaluation of their impact is hardly straightforward. FFSs were
createdbytheFAOIPMinAsiaprograminthe1980stoteachIndonesianfarmers
to avoid needless insecticide applications on rice, especially for white rice stem
borer and brown plant hopper. An FFS teaches about 25 farmers at a time. They
meetonceaweekforhalfadayduringthewholecroppingcycle.Intheory,theFFS
donotinvolvelectures(Gallagher2003),althoughfieldobservationsshowthatthe
facilitatorsdoactuallygivetalks(Winarto2004,Palis2006).Thisisnotacriticism;
talkingisalegitimatewayofconveyingideas,butitdoessuggestthatthedesigners
ofFFSover-packedthemethodwithunhelpfulrhetoricalbaggage.
Thefirstattemptstomeasureimpactwerequalitative.Thiswasausefulfirststep.
AnthropologistsVaydaandSetyawati(1995)foundthatwhiletakingafieldschool,
farmers in a village in Indonesia learned much about insect natural enemies, and
begantousepesticideslessoften.
Duringanintensive,two-yearstudyofa villageonJava,Winarto(2004)found
thatFFSgraduatesexperimentedwiththenewideas,e.g.inventingearlyploughing,
andhandcollectingeggmassesto controlwhite rice stem borers.Ooi(1998)also
foundthatfarmersexperimentedaftertakinganFFS.Winartolearnedthatfarmers
whotookthetrainingwereflatteredtobeinvolved,andtookitseriously.Theyonce
8 ImpactofIPMExtensionforSmallholderFarmersintheTropics 335
organizedatriptoaresearchstationtoaskresearchersquestionswhichhadarisen
duringtraining.ThefarmersenjoyedtheFFS,butitwasdifficultforthemtoteach
themessagestotheirneighbours,becausethemessageswerecomplex,becausethe
farmers did not have a convenient time and place to convey the information and
becausetheuntrainedvillagersweresceptical.Farmerswerealsodisappointedthat
researchersdidnotvisitthemtolearnaboutthefarmerinventions(Winarto2004).
Various studies show that farmers adopt the principles taught in FFS. For ex-
ample,astudyinthePhilippinesfoundthatFFSfarmershadlearnedenoughfrom
the field school to adopt organic rice growing (Carpenter 2003). A study in Peru
foundthatpotatofarmerswhohadattendedFFShadhigheryieldsthantheirneigh-
bours(Ortizetal.2004,see alsoGodtlandetal.2004).IntheCentralPhilippines,
along-termvillagestudyshowedthatfarmerslearnedtoobserveinsectsinthefield
school,andthateachyearfewerofthemusedinsecticides,untilsomesixyearsafter
training,whenallornearlyallofthemhadstoppedsprayingforinsectsinrice(Palis
2006).AstudyofcottonfarmersinSouthernIndiashowedthatIPMadoption(fol-
lowingFFS)reducedpesticideuseby78%withoutaffectingcropyields,suggesting
thatIPMisprofitableandthatmuchofthecurrentuseofpesticidesisunnecessary
(Mancini2006).
However,quantitativestudiesofsomeoftheoriginalFFScohortsbyFederand
colleagues raise doubts. They found that the most prosperous farmers had been
preferentiallychosenforthefieldschools,biasingthe results.Therewaslittle dif-
ference between FFS graduates and their neighbours;i.e. the FFS graduateswere
notgettingbetter rice harvests,andwere notusingless pesticide. Trainedfarmers
werenotteachingtheirnewIPMknowledgetotheirneighbours(Federetal.2004a,
2004b).Thisisaproblembecauseonlyabout25peoplecantakeanFFSatonetime.
Smallclass sizeshelpensurea qualityexperience.However,if the25peoplewho
takeafieldschooldonotteachtheinformationtotheirneighbours,amessagethat
reachedmorepeoplemightbemoreeffective.Rolaetal.(2002)alsofoundthatFFS
graduatesdonotteachnewinformationtofriendsandneighbours.vandenBergand
Jiggins(2007)critique Feder et al.’s methods, e.g. arguingthat informationmight
have spread from IPM farmers to the non-trained ones, and that the study gave
insufficient attention to savings in insecticide by IPM farmers. There is clearly a
partisanflavourtothisdebate,andvariousotherstudiesdosuggestthattheresultsof
FFSareoftenmodest.Forexample,Ricker-Gilbert(2005)inBangladeshconcluded
thatavisitfromanextensionagentwasamorecost-effectivemethodthanFFSfor
teachingIPMtechnology.
Rice farmersin Bangladeshwho hadtaken FFS couldnotidentifyplanthopper
nymphs;mostthoughtthenymphswererelatedtostemborers(whicharelepidopter-
ans,i.e.entirelydifferentinsects).AfterIPMtrainingbyvariousNGOs,fewifany
farmers practiced new techniquesthat they were taught, because the technologies
wereperceivedasbeinglaborintensiveorrisky.Overtime,farmerstendedtoforget
muchofwhattheyweretaught(Robinsonetal.2007).
TworeviewsofAfricanfieldschoolssuggestthatFFSdolowerpesticideuseand
raiseyield,butthatthesebenefitsdonotspreadbeyondtheFFSgraduates,inpart
becausefarmersarenotrewardedfortakingtimetoteachothers.Also,fieldschools
336 J.W.Bentley
arenotintegratedintolocalextensionprograms,churchesorothergrassrootsorgani-
zations.Fieldschoolsareexpensiveanddependentonforeigndonors.Theirimpact
hasnot beensufficiently evaluated,butFFS are probablynota feasible modelfor
nationalextensionprograms,atleastnotinAfrica(Davis2006,Anandajayasekeram
etal.2007).
Onerathersoberingreviewofinsecticideusesuggeststhatdespitethepopularity
ofIPM,insecticideuseisincreasingaroundtheworld,eveninareasthatfavourIPM,
like California and the UK. Perhaps insecticide use would have been even more
widespreadif notfor IPM, butit will be unlikelyto do away with insecticides, in
partbecausenewcompoundsarebeinginventedwhichcauselowerenvironmental
impacts.Themajornewpestmanagementtechnologythatismakinganimpacton
the way that insecticides are targetedis genetically modified (GM) crops (Devine
andFurlong2007).
FFS hasbeena popularIPM extensionmethodin tropicalcountriesforseveral
years,andyetitsfullimpactsandcost-benefitareonlypartiallyunderstood.FFSwas
alreadybeingpromotedoutsideofitspilotareasbeforeitsimpactwaswellknown.
MoststudiesoftheimpactofFFSreportreducedexpensesforinputs,increased
yields,andhigherincomeforfarmers.However,mostof thesestudiesare ofpilot
programs,andthereislessinformationonthecost-effectivenessoflarge-scaleIPM
Programs(Sorbyetal.2003citedinKelly2005).
AstudyofFFSgraduates,theirneighboursand“control”farmersfromnon-FFS
villages in Sri Lanka concluded that FFS graduates do make fewer applications
of insecticide than others, and that the field school did teach them about natural
enemiesandtheimportanceofnotmakingearlysprays.HowevertheFFSfarmers
donotteachwhattheylearntotheirneighbours(afterall,whatpeoplelearnthrough
discoverylearningmaybedifficulttotransmitbytalking).Thereislittleornoim-
pactofFFSatthenationallevel,becausesofewfarmersactuallyattendanFFS,less
than2%ofSriLanka’sfarmers(similartofiguresfromIndonesia,the Philippines
andelsewhere).Inotherwords,FFSdoesteachvaluableideastoindividualfarmers,
but the new ideas do not spread to others, and national programs are not able to
teachenoughfieldschoolstodirectlyreachmostfarmersinthecountry(Trippetal.
2005).
8.3 The Message
ThefirstFFS(RiceinAsia)hadanappropriatemessage:naturalpestcontrol,with
native, natural enemies of insect pests. The message was well suited to the FFS
method:talkingaboutnaturalenemiesofpests,observingtheminthefield.Farm-
ersexperimentedby leavinga small partof their field untreatedwith insecticides.
Then they observed the counter-intuitive results: there were fewer pests without
insecticide.Thenewtechnology(noinsecticide)wascheaperandeasiertousethan
thetechnologyitreplaced(insecticideabuse).Thisfortunatematchofmessageand
method helped to make FFS appealing, but when FFS began to be applied more
widely,pesticideswereoccasionallyaddedtothecurriculum.
8 ImpactofIPMExtensionforSmallholderFarmersintheTropics 337
For example, when FFS came to South America in 1999, it was forced to in-
clude fungicides, for late blight in potatoes (Nelson et al. 2001).In Bangladesh a
large, international NGO received training from some of the best experts in FFS,
andconductedawidely-publicizedFFSprogram.Aftertheprojectended,someof
thestaffformedtheirownNGO.Bytheearly2000s,theprobleminBangladeshwas
laborshortage,asyoungpeopletookjobsin the garmentfactories.Farmerscould
nothandweedalltheirownrice.In2005Iinterviewedextensionistsandfarmersin
Bangladesh,whowereexcitedabouthavingconductedanFFStoteachherbicides.
Theextensioniststaughtthefarmerstoapplyherbicidestothewaterintheflooded
field,andtocountdaysoflabor,keepcosts,andtoobservefishandfrogs,toensure
thatwildanimalswerenotkilledbythechemicals.Farmershadbeenreluctanttotry
herbicides,fearingtheywoulddamagetheirland,butwerepleasedwiththeresults.
FFSisversatileenoughtoteachmanymessages,includingchemicals.
Therearemanyversatileextensionmethodsavailable,butchoosingthemessage
isoftenmoredifficult.When thecoffeeberryborerenteredColombiain theearly
1990s, researchers were keen to find an alternative to chemicals. They tried Bb,
which failed. They invented sampling methods which took six hours to conduct,
sonoonewouldadoptthem.TheybroughtparasiticwaspsfromAfrica,whichdid
becomeestablished, but which parasitized only 5% of the berry borerpopulation.
FivepercentfewerpestsisasignificantsavingsinacropasvaluableasColombian
coffee, but farmers still demanded more control (Baker 1999, Bentley and Baker
2002).
Through rigorous entomological studies, researchers knew that the borer only
lived in coffee berries. It had no alternative host. So by gathering up all berries
fromthe groundand by gleaningover-ripefruitfrom the trees, the growerscould
eliminatethepest’shabitat.Researcherscalledthegleaning-plus-cleanharvest“Re-
Re.” Extension agents taught Re-Re, but farmers would not pick fallen fruit from
theground.Thehillsideswereusuallysosteepthatbendingoverwasuncomfortable
andcouldleadapersontosliporfall;thefallenfruitwasoftenhiddenbyleaves.The
berriesonthegroundwereoftenrottenandcouldnotbesold.Butfarmersadapted
Re-Re, and beganto make moreof an effortto harvestall the coffeeberriesfrom
thetrees(cleanharvest),becausethegoodberriescouldbesold,whichusuallypaid
for the labor to pick them. At first researchers and extensionists were displeased
that farmers were modifying Re-Re, but they eventually realized that the farmer
modificationsmade the technologymore acceptable, that clean harvest was being
adopted,anditwascontrollingthepest(Aristiza´baletal.2002).
Clean harvestis alsobeingusedbyfarmersto controlthecoffeeberryborerin
other parts of Latin America and in India. Even though Re-Re is a low, unglam-
orous technology, farmer modifications made it simple and functional enough so
thatotherswoulduseit.
FFS may be more useful for research than for extension, because it gives
scientists a chance to see how farmers react to scientific ideas, and because the
FFS permits farmers to understand the reasons behind a new technology, and to
suggest improvements(Paul Van Mele, personal communication).In the 1990s, a
Swiss-funded project by Zamorano in Nicaragua and El Salvador taught farmers
338 J.W.Bentley
using various FFS (some farmers learned about maize and beans, some learned
aboutvegetables,etc.).Farmerscombinedthe newideascreativelywiththeirown
knowledge, even though the program did not actively encourage them to do so.
Some of the changes were especially useful. For example, twenty years earlier,
in the 1980s, researchers had tried to develop “trash trap” (piles of leaves, where
slugswouldhide;farmerscouldturnthepilesoverandkilltheslugsbyhand).The
original traps did not work very well, but over the years the farmer experiments
improvedtheminseveralways(e.g.combiningthetrapswithcommercialpellets,
usingoldsacksasthetraps),whichmadethemmorepractical(Bentley2006).
FieldschoolsarestartingtobecombinedwithCIALs(theSpanishacronymfor
“localagriculturalresearchcommittees”),tofinetunetechnologies(VanMeleand
Braun2005,Braunetal.2000).ResearchersinPeruusedFFSandCIALstoinvent
culturalcontrolsforbacterialwiltinpotatoes.ThefarmerswhohadstudiedinFFS
liked the experience, and readily agreed to stay organized, but as a CIAL. Many
technologies came from the experience. One of the most interesting was a set of
rotationalcropsforreducingthebacteriainthesoil.Thiswasinvestigatedinformal
trials,undertheleadershipoftheresearchers,withcollaborationfromthefarmers.
Someofthetechnologiesemergedserendipitously.Forexample,researcherstaught
farmers to clean their sandals with lime before entering a field, so as not to track
inbacteria.CIPplantpathologistSylviePriounoticedthatwhenfarmersranoutof
lime,theyusedwoodashinstead.Shetestedtheashinherlaboratoryandfoundthat
iteffectivelykilledtheRalstoniabacteria(Bentleyetal.2006).
FFS experts are now arguing that field schools “are not meant for technology
transfer” and there is a need to experiment with how to combine FFS with mass
media,extensionetc.(Braunetal.2006).
8.4 Reaching the LargestAudience Possible
OncetheIPMmessageisright,thechallengeistotakeittoasmanypeopleaspos-
sible.Therearebasicallytwotypesofextensionmethods:face-to-face(i.e.people
teachingotherpeople),andmassmedia.
Face-to-facemethodsare notnecessarilylimited tosmallaudiences.Promoters
are a kind of farmer extension agent, which are popular in Central America, due
to World Neighboursand other institutions. They are a low cost, personal way of
reaching many people, which allows the technology to be adapted by the people
whowilluseit.InCentralAmerica,farmersburnedcropstubblefromfallowlands
every year before planting.This killed pests, and released nutrientsas ash for the
crops,butitalsoincreasedsoilerosion.Burningwascommonuntilthe1980s,but
hasnowstoppedalmostentirelyinCentralAmerica,thankstoeffortsbypromoters
linkedwithEl´ıasSa´nchez,WorldNeighboursandother.
Morales et al. (2002) found that the promoters were a kind of filter for tech-
nologies, simplifying them and passing them on. For example, in 2001, when the
NicaraguanMinistryofHealthinsistedthatcoffeegrowerskeepcoffeepulpoutof
streams,NGOsrespondedbyinventingakindofcesspoolforcoffee.Itwasmadeof
8 ImpactofIPMExtensionforSmallholderFarmersintheTropics 339
twopits,withawoodensluicebetweenthemandagravelfilterinabucket.Farmer
promoterssawthetechnique,andadaptedit,bymakingjustonepit.Thissavedon
expenses(no woodensluice, no plastic bucket),butit also keptcoffeepulpoutof
streams. The promoters had grasped the essential concepts of the technology,but
redesignedittobemuchmoreaffordable.
PicturesongsinBangladesh:singinganddancingaboutIPM,whileshowinglargeillustrations
InBangladesh,oneinnovativeNGO,Shushilan,used“picturesongs”(songand
averylargepaintingonascroll)asakindofmovingpicture,to teachappropriate
ricetechnologytothousandsofpeople,especiallyaboutnaturalenemiesandusing
organic fertilizer. As a performer sings out the message (and dances), the rest of
thetroupeaccompaniesherwithmusic,androllsouttheillustrationsonthescroll.
Hundredsofpeoplecanseeeachmemorableperformanceatonesitting,andasof
2005,some25,000peoplehadseenandheardthemessage(Bentleyetal.2005).
Videos have been used in Bangladesh, combined with farmer participatory re-
search, and community meetings. Researchers at RDA (Rural Development
Academy) developed appropriate rice seed technology with farmers (e.g. drying
rice seed on a bambootable, keeping seed dry in a painted pot). Then they made
videos where farmers spoke on camera. Their honest words were convincing to
otherfarmers,whocouldidentifywiththem.Extensionagentsshowedthevideosin
communities,andthenansweredquestionsfromtheaudience,whichallowedmany
peopleto be trained at once, in a relatively short time (Van Mele et al. 2005,Van
Meleinpress).
AnevaluationinBangladeshineightvillages(infourdistricts,aroundthecoun-
try)showthatoneyearaftervillagerswatchedthevideosmentionedabove,theyhad
improvedtheirseedstoragepractices,andhadadoptedvarioustechnologiesrecom-
mendedinthevideos,andabandonedotherpracticeswhichthevideosdiscouraged.
340 J.W.Bentley
AdoptionofseedhealthtechnologyinBangladeshoneyearafterseeingvideos
Seedstoragemethod Before(%) 1yearlater(%)
Notrecommended
Gunnybag 27 13
Motka(largeearthenjar) 28 11
Earthenpot 9 6
Recommended
Polybag 24 56
Metalicdrum 7 7
Paintedearthenpot 0 3
Source:adaptedfromHarun-Ar-Rashid(2007)
PlanthealthclinicinBolivia:farmersconsulttheweeklyclinicatafarmers’market
PlanthealthclinicsareanewextensionmethodbeingimplementedinNicaragua,
Bolivia,Uganda,Bangladeshandelsewhere,pioneeredbytheGlobalPlantClinic.
TheystartedinBoliviainthe1990s,sofarmersfromdistantareascouldbringplant
samplesandgetadviceaboutplanthealthproblems.Mostoftheclinicsare“mobile”
(only open one morning a week, e.g. on fair day, when the small town fills with
farmers from many kilometres around). The plant clinics provide a place for per-
sonalizedconsultationsbetweenfarmersandagronomists.Theplantclinicscanbe
easilycombinedwithothermethodslikefactsheets,radio,shortcourses(Danielsen
etal.2006).
GoingPublicisanotherface-to-facemethodforamassaudience.Anextensionist
goestoamarketoranothercrowdedplace,anddeliversashortmessage,andthen
repeatsit.Theaudiencecomesandgoes,butifthemessageiskepttofiveminutes,
several hundred people can hear it in a few hours. It is especially well suited to
rathersimple messagesthatmustshow something(e.g.a disease symptom,a new
tool). Going Public has been used in Bolivia, Bangladesh, Uganda and elsewhere
(Bentleyetal.2003).
8 ImpactofIPMExtensionforSmallholderFarmersintheTropics 341
GoingPublicinKenya:NelsonWekulotellsacrowdhowtovaccinatehensforNewcastledis-
ease.IPMtopicsworkequallywellwiththissoap-boxstyleofextension
WrittenmaterialinBolivia:GonzaloSandoval(left)handsoutfactsheetsononiondiseases,and
discussesthemwithfarmers
342 J.W.Bentley
Writtenmaterial,includingfactsheets,journalsandnewspapersarealsouseful,
especially when written for farmers and validated by farmers before distribution.
InIndia,coffeefarmersinKarnatakahavejournalsandmagazinesintheirhomes.
Adike Pathrike is a magazine that started as a newsletter in the 1980sand rapidly
expanded.ItispublishedentirelyintheKannadalanguage.Ithasacolorcoverand
additional black and white photos inside. Almost all of the material is based on
farmerexperiences.Althoughthe title literally means“arecamagazine”only10%
of the material is on areca. But whatever the topic, the new technologydescribed
hastobevalidatedbyfarmers,eventhoughagriculturalscientistswritemostofthe
material.Thereadersaresolidcommercialgrowers,familyfarmerswhoareliterate
andwhocanaffordamagazine.Thestronglocaltraditionofpublishingandreading
alsohelps.Advertisershelpkeepthecostsdown,andagoodpostalsystemhelpsto
moveit. Journalswould notbe effectiveeverywhere,butin this situation they are
(PadreandTripp2003).
Radio is a promising method, and has been used recently in Vietnam to teach
people to avoid insecticide abuse in rice. A project using radio, leaflets and other
medialedtoa53%reductionininsecticideuseandnolossinproductioninproject
sites, and the change eventually spread to more than a million rice farmers three
yearslater(EscaladaandHeong2004).Vietnamrecentlyexperiencedanoutbreak
ofavirusdiseaseinrice.Researchershelpedtoadjustanenvironmentalradiosoap
operatocommunicateessentialinformationtofarmers.Thistogetherwithleaflets,
TV broadcastsreachedtwo millionfarmersin three monthsand spreadthe use of
the “Escape Strategy” (light traps to detect peak immigrationsof the brown plant
hoppersthattransmitthevirus,tomakegroupdecisionsastowhentoplantinorder
toescapevirusinfectionthoughsynchronizedriceplanting).The“escapestrategy”
helpsfarmerstoavoidvirustransmissionwithoutpesticidesandisnowwidespread
intheMekongDelta(KLHeong,personalcommunication).
AstudyinBoliviacomparedFFStoradioandcommunityworkshops,whichare
likeFFS,butmorepeopleattend,asmanyas80.Communityworkshopsonlymeet
threetimesinsteadofadozen,savingtimeandexpense.Thecommunityworkshops
were nearlyas effectiveas FFS at gettinga message across, and the radio madea
respectableshowing,butatafractionofthecost(Bentleyetal.inpress).
8.5 ImpactofIPMExtension
StudiesofotherIPMextensionmethodsareevenhardertofindthanevaluationsof
FFS.Butthereareafew.
Likethebrownplanthopperinrice,thefallarmyworminCentralAmericaisa
pestofmaizewhichisusuallycontrolledbyitsnaturalenemies,aslongaspeople
donotsprayinsecticides.IPMtraininginHondurasinthe1980susedshortcourses,
butlikeFFSthecoursesemphasizedlearningbyobservation.Honduranfarmerswho
hadtakenIPMtrainingcouldnamemorenaturalenemies,andwerelesslikelytouse
insecticidethanneighbouringfarmerswhohadnottakenIPMcourses.However,the