Perceived Effect of Farmers Field School Approach on Capacity Building in Controlling Pre and Post Harvest Losses

Authors
A. Khatam 1
S. Muhammad 2
I. Ashraf 2
1 Deputy District Officer, Agricultural Extension Department, Swabi, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK).
2 Institute of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan.
Abstract
The present study was conducted in the central region of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), Pakistan comprising seven districts: Peshawar, Charsadda, Nowshera, Mardan, Swabi, Kohat and Hangu, during 2010. The objective was to analyze the perceived effect of Farmer Field School (FFS) approach on farmers’ capacity in controlling pre- and post- harvest losses. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data collected from 280 randomly selected farmer respondents. The analysis revealed that FFS had remarkably built up farmers’ capacity in controlling pre and post-harvest losses caused by rodents, birds, immature harvesting/picking, and inappropriate packing, storing, and transportation of the produce. Furthermore, FFS helped farmers in reducing losses at the market and controlling grain borer, wheat weevil, and store weevils effectively. The study concluded that the highest improvement as a result of FFS activities was in controlling losses by rodents, proper packaging and labeling of the produce, and controlling some stored grain pests like grain borer and wheat weevil. By and large, farmers’ capacity was built up in almost all aspects of controlling pre- and post-harvest losses, except a few i.e. losses due to immature harvesting of crops, and controlling losses caused by store insects, which needed special focus of the authorities concerned.

Keywords

1. Ahmad, M. 2009. Effect of Some Post-harvest Treatments on the Physiochemical Characters of Citrus Fruits during Storage. Higher Education Commission, Pakistan Research Repository, Pakistan. http://eprints.hec.gov.pk/1964/1/1891.htm. 22 Oct, 2009.
2. Ali, J. 2013. Farmers' Perspectives on Quality of Agricultural Information Delivery: A Comparison between Public and Private Sources. J. Agric. Sci. Technol., 15: 685-696.
3. Aslam, M., Ahmad, S. and Baloach, Q. B. 2006. Sustainable Crop Improvement and Integrated Management-Policies and Strategies. Int. Symp. on Sustainable Crop Improvement and Integrated Management, September 14-16, 2006, Faisalabad, Pakistan.
4. David, S. 2007. Learning to Think for Ourselves: Knowledge Improvement and Social Benefits among Farmer Field School Participants in Cameroon. J. Int. Agri. Ext. Edu., 14(2): 35-49.
5. Duveskog, D. and Friis-Hansen, E. 2008. Farmer Field Schools: A Platform for Transformative Learning in Rural Africa. In “Transformative Learning in Action: Handbook of Practice”, (Eds.): Mezirow, J. and Taylor, E.. Jossey-Bass Press, San Francisco, PP: 160-171.
6. Farooq, R. A. 2001. Understanding Research in Education. University Institute of Education and Research, University of Agriculture., Rawalpindi. Z. A. Printers, Lahore, Pakistan.
7. Government of Pakistan. 2011-12. Agricultural Statistics of Pakistan 2010-2011. Statistics Division Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Islamabad, Pakistan.
8. Habib, M., Khan, M. Z., Iqbal, M., Nawab, K. and Ali, S. 2007. Role of Farmer Field Schools on Sugarcane Productivity in Malakand, Pakistan. African Crop Sci. Conf. Proceed., (8): 1443-1446.
9. Irshad M. and Balouch, U. K. 1985. Losses in Wheat during Storage and Their Prevention. Prog. Farm., 5(2): 71-79.
10. Khan, S. R. A. 2004. Wheat Production Scenario. Daily Dawn, (News Paper)Jan 12: 3.
11. Khatoon-Abadi, A. 2011. Prioritization of Farmers’ Information Channels: A Case Study of Isfahan Province, Iran. . Agric. Sci. Technol., 13: 815-828.
12. Khisa, S. G., 2003. Overview of Farmer Field Schools Approach in Kenya. In: "Farmer Field Schools: The Kenyan Experience", (Eds.): K. R. Sones, Duveskog, D. and Minjauw, D.. Report of the Farmer Field Schools Stakeholders’ Forum, ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya, PP. 3-10.
13. Kwarteng, J. A., Kuehn, A., Braun, A. and Gerken, A. 2004. Assessment of Participatory Technology Development and Extension (PTD and E) in Ghana. J. Ext. Syst., 20(1): 1-17.
14. Mohammad, M. A. 2000. Effect of the Host Food on the Population Density of the Confuse Flour Beetle (Tribolium confusum Duv). Arab Univ. J. Agric. Sci., 8(2): 413-423.
15. Navarro, S., Y., Gonen, K. M. and Frandji, H. 1978. Causes of Loss in Stored Grain in Isreal. Sp. Pub., Minis. Agric, Isreal, 105: 95-112.
16. Nederlof, E. S. and Odonkor, E. N. 2004. Lessons from an Interactive Research Process: The Case Study of Cowpea Farmer Field Schools. Convergence of Science Project (WUR/University of Legon), C/O BP 779 Faculty of Agriculture, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan, PP. 66-74.
17. Reardon, R. and Berdegué, J. A. 2002. The Rapid Rise of Supermarkets in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities for Development. Development Policy Rev., 20: 371–388.
18. Röling, N. G. 2002. Issues and Challenges for FFS: An Introductory Overview. Invited Plenary Theme Paper for the Intentional Workshop on Farmer Field Schools (FFS): Emerging Issues and Challenges, October 21-25, 2002, Held in Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
19. Röling, N. G., Hounkonnou, D., Offei, S. K., Tossou, R. and Huis, A.V. 2004. Linking Science and Farmers’ Innovative Capacity: Diagnostic Studies from Ghana and Benin. Netherlands J. Agric. Sci., 52(3/4): 211-235.
20. Taylor, B. J., Dempster, M. and Donnelly, M. 2007. Grading Gems: Appraising the Quality of Research for Social Work and Social Care. British J. Soc. Work. 37(2): 335–354.
Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology
Volume 16, Issue 4
July and August 2014
Pages 759-765