Teaching IPM-Late Blight to Resource-poor Farmers

Through the IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development) funded project Integrated Management of Potato Late Blight Disease – Refining and Implementing Local Strategies through Farmers’ Field Schools (see GILB Newsletter No. 10, April 2000) a total of 228 cycles of Farmers’ Field Schools with a strong Participatory Research component (FFS-PR) have been run in Bolivia, Bangladesh, China, Ethiopia, Peru and Uganda during 1999–2002. In the initial part of the project, extension workers or researchers facilitated all FFS-PR, but during the third year of the project (2001–2002 cropping season) about 40% of the FFS-PR have been led by farmers, who received additional training in technical and methodological terms.

The FFS-PR Methodology

The FFS-PR approach for integrated management of late blight is, in essence, an adult education method with a strong participatory research component. It involves the formation of a group of about 25 farmers with a facilitator, who is in charge of running the activities of the school. The main function of the facilitator is to design the curriculum using appropriate learning activities and to facilitate the experiments to test late blight control practices. Farmers meet with the facilitator in learning sessions every two weeks (or more frequently if they so decide). The learning activities are the central part of this method and involve different hands-on activities, so that farmers can observe results and reach conclusions about concepts and principles by themselves. For example, by putting late blight infected potato leaves in a plastic bag together with healthy leaves, they can observe the process of disease dissemination and the contagiousness aspect of late blight and start concluding that there is “something alive” involved. This process changes their belief that late blight is caused by rain or humidity and creates the germ concept in their minds.

The use of resistant potato varieties or clones and the optimization of fungicide use were the most important control components tested within the FFS-PR. Each farmer group managed and evaluated a field trial, which became the main aid for the learning activities. In these trials, farmers tested new clones, the relationship between resistance and fungicide use; frequencies, types and doses of fungicides; and other practices that they considered important for their potato farming systems. The farmer groups were divided into sub-groups, which made observations and registered data of a specific treatment. During each training session, sub-groups observed each specific treatment to determine the presence of pests and symptoms, weather and soil conditions, etc. and based on their observations, they could exchange ideas about what they could do to control late blightLB. These sub-groups registered data from planting to harvesting, so they could understand disease progression and factors that influence it. They could also estimate production costs, particularly control costs, and make a comparative analysis across treatments, so that they could assess treatments not only based on control effects, but also in terms of cost-effectiveness. The purpose was to give farmers a sense of ownership of the research and learning process so they do not see it as something that belongs to the outside promoters.

Participatory evaluation of potato genotypes with resistance to late blight was conducted in each country (except in Bangladesh, where no resistant materials were available). Participating farmers in all countries affirmed the contribution of resistance to late blight control. However, farmers do not select only for late blight resistance, but for an appropriate combination of yield, culinary quality, marketability and late blight resistance.

FFS-PR led to rapid diffusion of resistant cultivars.

Farmers began multiplying promising late blight resistant varieties or clones in Bolivia, China, Ethiopia, Peru and Uganda. For example, during the first year of the project (1999–2000 cropping season) 50 new resistant clones were introduced in 13 FFS-PR in Peru and farmers selected the ten best. A recent survey indicated that about 4% of the fields of participants in FFS-PR is now planted to these resistant cultivars. Within three cropping seasons in Bolivia, there was a significant increase in the area planted to three of the varieties introduced through the FFS-PR. In China farmers have planted 62 acres with selected FFS-PR clones after three cropping seasons.

In Uganda, proper fungicide use (correct product, correct dose, and spraying after observing the field and weather conditions) introduced in the FFS-PR was adopted by 80% of the participating farmers, and in Ethiopia, most participants adopted diffused light stores, planting in furrows, hilling, sorting at harvest and planting in the rainy season. Farmers consider that some of these practices have a controlling effect against late blight, especially the use of resistant varieties, sorted seed, planting in furrows and hilling. Other practices are important to potato management, in general, and point out how a FFS-PR should not focus on one constraint because the added value of the different practices could make the effect of improved technologies more visible for farmers.

Economic Benefits

As the first step of a larger evaluation to determine if FFS can contribute to poverty alleviation, an economic evaluation based on consecutive survey data collected during 1999–2002 was made of the FFS-PR in Cajamarca, Peru. Farmers who participated in FFS-PR increased their yields between 1.2 and 4.3/tons/ha. An increase of 2 tons/ha represented an additional benefit of USA$ 160/ha at potato prices in 2002. However, the average plot size of FFS-PR participating farmers was < 0.25–0.3 ha and the current low market price did not provide sufficient incentive for farmers to produce more potatoes. In locations where potatoes are grown in a more commercial manner on larger areas and with a higher market price, the benefits should increase accordingly. The reduction in the application of fungicides was statistically significant in only one of the four years surveyed, representing an average benefit of $3.00/farmer for a reduction of 0.8 applications. However, one must keep in mind that late blight control is site-specific. In comparisons made in FFS-PR during the 2001–2002 cropping season in Uganda, the practice of weekly sprays cost 68% more than the FFS-PR method of optimal fungicide use.

The integrated management of late blight in developing countries requires that farmers have access to information about the biophysical principles involved in the control of this disease. However, having access is not enough if there are not appropriate methods available to facilitate the interpretation and understanding of this information. The PR-FFS methodology, which is effective in promoting learning and combining training with research to adapt and refine IPM to local conditions, represents an alternative for institutions that are working with farmers and aim at promoting IPM in general. However, scaling up this kind of method to reach millions of farmers is still a challenge.

Submitted by Oscar Ortiz, International Potato Center, Lima, Peru; Email: o.ortiz(at)cgiar.org

FFS-PR in Karubanda, Uganda, 2002.