Sarhad J. Agric. Vol.28, No.1, 2012

FARMERS FIELD SCHOOLS AND RICE PRODUCTIVITY: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF DISTRICT MALAKAND MAHMOOD IQBAL*, KHALID NAWAB*, MUHAMMAD SAJJAD***, UROOBA PERVAIZ* and SUBHAN ULLAH** * Department of Extension Education & Communication, Agricultural University, Peshawar – Pakistan. ** Department of Water Management, Agricultural University, Peshawar – Pakistan. *** Department of Agriculture Economics, Agricultural University Peshawar – Pakistan. ABSTRACT Farmer field schools (FFS) are always aimed to help farmers to discover and learn about field ecology and integrated crop management. A study for rice crop was conducted in four FFS villages namely Chinar Kot, Karkani, Dheri and Matkani of Malakand Agency during 2004-05. From each FFS, 10 farmers were selected on the basis of equal allocation making sample size of 40. The research was based on primary as well as secondary data. Primary data were collected from farmers while secondary data were taken from Agriculture Extension Department, Batkhela Malakand Agency. Extensive interview schedule was designed and each farmer was interviewed personally. The study was based on comparison of cost, yield and income of rice with and without FFS. Paired t-test and statistical package for social scientists (SPSS) were used for analysis, Results of this study show that Best Agricultural Practices (BAP) has brought a positive change in the attitude of farmers of the project area through FFS approach. In rice 77.5% of the respondents were between the ages of 20 to 40 years, 25% of the respondents had education of primary level, 17.5% middle, 35% matric level, 7.5% at intermediate level and 15% at graduate level. Average land holding size was & acres, while 50% of the respondents were satisfied with FFS approach. Seed cost, cost of fertilizer, crop protection and herbicide was reduced by 15.99%, 38.27%, 15.49%, and 6.79% respectively while rice yield was increased by 647.75 kg /ha from 3879.753 to 4527.51. Key Words: Agriculture, Farmers Field Schools, Extension Education, District Malakand, Rice. Citation: Iqbal, M., K. Nawab, M. Sajjad, U. Pervaiz and S. Ullah. 2012. Farmers field schools and rice productivity an empirical analysis of district Malakand. Sarhad J. Agric. 28(1): 143-148 INTRODUCTION Rice, throughout history has been one of the most important food. Today, this unique grain help sustain two-third of the population in the world. Yet little is known about the origin of rice cultivation. Archeological evidence suggests rice has been feeding mankind for more than 10,000 years. From china to ancient Greece from Persia to Neil delta rice migrated across the continents eventually find its way to the western hemisphere (http://www.usarice.com/about/guide_history.html). Rice is the second largest cereal produced in the world. At the beginning of the 1990, annual production was around 350 million tons where as by the end of the century it had reached 410 million tons. World production of milled rice was 605 million tons in 2005 against 400 million tons in 2001. The strong pressure on land and water resources led to a decrease of seeded areas in some Western and Eastern Asian countries. Out of total cultivated area in Pakistan, rice occupies 2.5 million hectare, which is 10.9 % of the total cultivated area. Thus, among the major crops grown in Pakistan, in terms of acreage, rice stands second (i.e. next to wheat) and has occupied 2.5 million hectare (i.e. 10.9%) of the total cultivated area when compared with the leading rice producing countries in the world. As far as production is concerned, during 2004-2005, it was 4.991 million tons, whereas total world production was 506 million tons. Thus, in terms of production Pakistan produced 0.9863% of the total world rice during 2004-05 (FAO, 2004-05). Although rice production in North West Frontier province (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) is very low compared to Punjab and Sindh, however, rice occupies an important position among the major crops grown in the province. In terms of area, only 2.7% of the total rice cultivated area of Pakistan is in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa rice was cultivated on 60.7 and 61 thousand hectares land during 2004 and 2005 respectively. As far as production is concerned, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa produced 113.8 thousand tons in 1986 and 122 thousand tons in 2000. Thus, the annual growth in rice production during Mahmood Iqbal et al. Farmers field schools, rice productivity: empirical analysis of Malakand … 144 the last two decade is 0.4 percent. The overall situation (i.e. area and production) regarding rice in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for the years 2004-05 is shown in Table I. Table I Area and production of rice in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa District Area in 000 Hectare Production in 000 tonnes Peshawar 0.3 0.7 Charsadda 0.1 0.2 Nowshera 0.1 0.1 Mardan 1.4 2.3 Swabi 0.2 0.3 Kohat 0.1 0.2 Hangu 0.3 0.5 Karak 0.0 0.0 Mansehra 2.3 3.4 Battagram 2.5 5.1 Abbottabad 0.0 0.0 Haripur 0.0 0.0 Kohistan 0.1 0.1 Malakand 7.0 14.4 Swat 7.1 16.9 Bunir 0.3 0.7 Shangla 1.2 2.7 Dir Lower 8.1 13.2 Dir Upper 7.5 17.3 Chitral 2.3 3.9 D.I.Khan 5.2 14.7 Tank 0.1 0.3 Source: Govt of KPK, 2004-05 Table I indicates that district Malakand is a main rice producing district in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. District Malakand ranks in 4 th position in rice production behind district Dir Upper, Swat. The area under rice in district Malakand in 2004-05 is 7 thousand hectares. The production during the same year is 14.4 thousand tones. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa most of the rice area is situated in the high altitude mountainous valleys such as Malakand and Hazara divisions. Similarly in Kurrum agency and the attached tribal area also produce rice in sufficient quantity. It is the staple food of the local population in these hilly areas, and the economy of the areas largely depends on rice production and related activities. Besides being a food grain, rice straw is also used for feeding the livestock as roughage in winter season when the green fodder is scarce. Rice apart from being the subsistence crop of the landed peasantry of these areas provide employment to the rural labor through operations such as nursery raising, transplantation, harvesting, threshing, milling and as a commodity of trade (Khan, 2001). Extension methods are some of the major weapons for injecting the modern findings of research in agricultural practices to increase agricultural -production in particular and uplift the rural masses in general. These methods are used as tool by extension workers to bring desirable changes in the behavior of rural masses to arrange the best learning situations and to create situation in which communication and interaction can take place between extension workers and farmers. Extension methods arc effective means of communication to provide knowledge and skills, so that the learner may sec, hear and do the things conveyed by extension worker. Furthermore, extension methods stimulate adult youth male and female for action. The Farmer Field Schools (FFS) model aims to help farmers to discover and learn about, field ecology and integrated crop management. On the basis of this knowledge, farmers become independent, confident decision makers and experts in their own fields (Fliert and Vande-Fliert 1993). The training is 'hand on' and is carried out almost entirely in the field. The four major principles within the training courses are: i. Grow a healthy crop ii. Observe field weekly iii. Conserve natural enemies of crop pest and Sarhad J. Agric. Vol.28, No.1, 2012 145

iv. Understand ecology and become experts in their own fields. A corner stone of the FFS methodology is Agro-Ecosystem Analysis (AESA). This involves regular (usually weekly) observations of the crop. Participants work in sub groups of 4 or 5 and learn how to make and record detailed observations of growth stage of the crop, insect pest and beneficial numbers of insects, weeds and disease levels, weather conditions, soil condition and overall plant health. The farmers then take management decisions based on these observations. An important aspect of FFS is helping and encouraging farmers to conduct their own experiments and to test the ecological crop management methods. A common exercise is comparing through Agro Eco System Analysis (AESA). Farmers pay particular attention to pest (including diseases and weeds) and natural enemy population and general plant health. At the end of the season they record yield and calculate input cost and profit margin. Objectives of the study: The objectives of this study were: i. To examine the change in productivity of the Rice ii. Determine increase in per acre yield of the crop iii. Find out reduction in per acre input cost, assess increase in profit margin per acre. iv. Formulate recommendations based on the study findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study was conducted in Malakand Agency having two Tchsils i.e. Sama Ranizai and Swat Ranizai during 2004-05. Main crop of Swat Ranizai is rice. The area was selected due to the establishment of FFS by Malakand Rural Development Project (MRDP) through a specific project Best Agriculture Practices (BAP) on Rice. Malakand district comprises of almost a little over 100 villages (District Census Report 2004-05). It was not possible to entertain all the villages. Therefore, on the basis of equal allocation, four villages growing Rice crop were studied which were Chinar kot, Karkani, Dheri and Matkani. A list of all FFS participants was obtained from Rice FFS villages. From each FFS on the basis of equal allocation 10 farmers were selected purposely on education basis. The total numbers of the respondents were 40. This research was based on primary data as well as secondary data. The primary data were collected from the farmers and Secondary data was obtained from Agriculture Extension Department Batkhela, Malakand Agency. Interview schedule was designed in such a way to collect complete and correct information. It was pre-tested to check validity and reliability and to add and omit the relevant and irrelevant questions respectively. Each respondent was personally interviewed. During the interview the purpose of the study was also explained to the respondents. The study focused at comparison of cost, yield and income of Rice -with and with out Farmer Fields Schools (FFS). The collected data was analyzed after sorting, with the help of suitable computer software (SPSS). Simple data analysis including frequency distribution and cross tabulation was also performed. As the study compared the yields of rice crops before and after FFS a paired sample difference or paired t- test was applied to each crop individually to test the significances. The formula is given below. d T = Sd/ √n Where: d = Deference between two sample observations n = Number of pairs sd= Standard Deviation d = ∑di/n and sd = ∑ (di-d) 2/n-1.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION It has been shown in different researches conducted on various social problems, that age plays an important role in dissemination, adoption and diffusion of any innovation. In other words adoption and diffusion of invention are positively correlated with age. Younger is the person more is the adoptability .and acceptability. Consequently upon which diffusion rate is accelerated. Similarly, young farmers adopt Mahmood Iqbal et al. Farmers field schools, rice productivity: empirical analysis of Malakand … 146 and accept new technology quicker than the old farmers. For example, in Indian Tamal Nado State, Bamboo tube well technology was introduced and adopted by majority of the young farmers (80%) (Crishan,1982). In Rice 77.5% of the respondents were between the age group of 20-40 years, maximum (42.5%) respondents were in the age group of 20-30 years as shown in Table II. Table II Distribution of respondents on the basis of age, 2004-05, Malakand Agency Age group No. of respondents %age Below 20 1 2.5 21-30 17 42.5 31-40 14 35 41-50 6 15 51-60 2 5 Total 40 100 Source: field data Education Education is considered to play a vital role in human resource development. It influences the pace of, development by providing skills, knowledge and problem solving techniques. Educational level of the respondents helps in judging the quality of human resources and developing stage of society as it broadens the vision of the community. Education is an important factor which has a positive influence on human behavior either directly or indirectly. Educated people are expected to have more favorable attitude towards agricultural skills, knowledge and information as compared to uneducated one (Hassan, 1991). Therefore, it was necessary to collect the data about this aspect to visually the picture of educational level. The sample respondents were one major category, namely literate. The literate respondents were further classified as primary, middle, matric, Intermediate and graduate. Number of respondents belonging to each of the above stated categories is presented in the Table III, which shows that 25% of respondents had education of primary level, 17.5% of middle, 35% of matriculate level and only 22.5% of the respondents were above matric.

Table III Distribution of respondents on the basis of education level Educating level No. of farmers %age Primary 10 25 Middle 7 17.5 Metric 14 35 Intermediate 3 7.5 Graduate 6 15 Total 40 100 Source: field data Land Holding Table IV shows that the total land for all respondents was found to be 263 acres out of which 246 acres arc irrigated and 17 acres are un irrigated which makes 93.54% irrigated and 6.46% un irrigated respectively. The area under rice cultivation was 74 acres which is 28% of the total area. Table IV Distribution of respondents regarding distribution of land (acres) Major crops Irrigated Land Un irrigated Land Total Rice 246 (93.54%) 17 (6.46%) 263 Source: field data Input Cost before FFS Table V shows the total input cost for Rice, crop production and protection before FFS was Rs.3514. Before FFS the average cost for seed was Rs.1082 (30.80%), fertilizers cost was Rs.1224 (34.83%), crop protection cost was Rs.770.75 (21.93%), and that of herbicide was Rs. 436.75 (12.43%). These results of crop production and herbicide cost are in conformity with the findings of Gyali and Salokhe (1997) and Ciszinszky (1981). Table V Crop production and protection input average cost/are i.e. seed cost (SC), fertilizer cost (FC), crop protection cost (CPC), FYM cost and herbicide cost (HC) in rupees, before FFS Crop SC FC CPC FYM HC Total Rice 1082 Rs. 1224 770.75 -- 436.75 3514 Sarhad J. Agric. Vol.28, No.1, 2012 147

Percent cost 30.80% 34.83% 21.94% -- 12.43% Source: Field data Input Cost after FFS Table VI shows the total input cost of Rice crop production and protection after FFS was Rs 3105. While the average cost of seed was Rs.460 (14.81%), fertilizer cost was Rs.2270 (73.10%), crop protection cost was Rs.200 (6.44%), and herbicide cost was 175 (5.64%). These results of fertilizer for Rice are in conformity with the studies of Orlando and Zambello (1980). Mangan (1997) reported similar results while the outcome of fertilizer cost and use are also in conformation with the findings of Ciszinszky (1981). Table VI Crop production and protection input average cost i.e. seed cost (SC), fertilizer cost (FC), crop protection cost (CPC), FYM cost and herbicide cost (HC) after FFS (Rs). Crop SC FC CPC FYM HC Total Rice 460 Rs. 2270 200 -- 175 3105 Percent cost 14.82% 73.10% 6.44% -- 5.64% Source: Field data The difference before farmer field school and after farmer field school (FFS) for crop production and protection the total input cost for Rice were Rs.-490 while average cost for seed was Rs.-622.5 (15.99%), for fertilizer, Rs.1054 (38.27%) for crop protection was Rs.-570.75 (15.49%), and for herbicide it was Rs.-261.75 (6.79%) (Table VII). Table VII Difference of crop production and protection input average cost before and after farmer field school (FFS) i.e. seed cost (SC), fertilizer cost (FC), crop protection cost (CPC), FYM cost and herbicide cost (Rs) Crop SC FC CPC FYM HC Total Rice -622 1054 -570.75 -- -261.75 -409 Percent cost 15.99% 38.80% 15.49% -- 6.79% Source: Field data Before farmer field schools the seed rate for Rice surveyed was found to be 54.125 kg/acre. After farmer field school the farmer of Rice growers were able to plant their crops at seed rate of 19 kg/acre. Rice production based on paired t-test showed a significant increase in seed rate with a difference of -35.125 kg /acre. The results of plant population are also in conformity with that of Lesin (1954). Table VIII Average seed rate (Kg) and plant population / acre before and after FFS and its difference, 2004-2005 Malakand Agency Before FFS After FFS Difference Crop Seed rate Seed rate Plant population Rice 54.125 19 26500 Source: Field data Table IX Increase in yield produce (Kg) and income (Rs) of farmer Before FFS After FFS Difference Crop Yield Income Yield Income Yield Income Rice 1570.75 31545 1833 36660 262.25 5115 Source: Field data Table X Pair sample t-test for Rice Paired Mean Df t-calculated sig (2-tailed) Seed rate before FFS 54.1250 39 35.888 0.00 Seed rate after FFS 19.0000 Seed cost before FFS 1082.500 39 31.801 0.00 Seed cost after 460.00 Fertilizer cost before FFS 1224.000 39 -23.568 0.00 Fertilizer cost after FFS 2270.000 Crop prot cost before FFS 770.7500 39 21.663 0.00 Crop prot cost after FFS 200.000 Plant Pop before FFS 66000.00 39 -42.378 0.00 Plant Pop after FFS 92500.00 Yield quality before FFS 1570.7500 39 -15.318 0.00 Yield quality after FFS 1833.000 Yield income before FFS 31545.000 39 -13.634 0.00 Mahmood Iqbal et al. Farmers field schools, rice productivity: empirical analysis of Malakand … 148

Yield income after FFS 36660.000 Source: Field data Before farmer field schools the farmer in study area for Rice obtained yield I570.75 kg/ acre with net income of Rs.31545. After farmer field schools the farmers were able to obtain the Rice yield of 1833 kg/acre with a net income of Rs.36660. Statistical analysis of the data for Rice showed a significant increase both for yield and income with difference in yield 262.25 kg/ acre and in income Rs 5115 (Table IX). These results of high yield in Rice due to involvement of farmers FFS activities in are in conformation with the finding s of Loesin et al. (2000). The FFS approach brings significant difference for Rice using paired t-test. Based on the t- tabulated value analyzed at 0.05% level of significance, being found less than the respective calculated values of the crops, it was concluded that the hypothesis tested was highly significant; and hence, on FFS approach were found to have significant effects on the rice yield (Table X). CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Results of this study showed that BAP have brought a positive change in the attitude of farmers of the project area through FFS approach. The role of FFS introduced by Malakand Rural Development Project in the development of agriculture was worth mentioning. It has brought improvements in crop yield of Rice and their income through FFS approach. The trainees were made aware of the FFS approach through formal and informal method. The study is useful document for future programmes of such nature. On the basis of results of the research studies following recommendations are forwarded. i. BAP should spread their developmental activities for maximum participation of the entire rural masses through participatory FFS approach. ii. Most of the public sector organizations working for FFS approach at provincial / federal level should be forced to coordinate their activities for boosting their work and reduced expenditure in this regard. iii. Many FFS should be planned as a result of this study as it shows that most of the respondents have adopted new knowledge to the best possible extent through this approach. iv. The FFS facilitator and coordinator should be more skilled and practical oriented so that farmers face no problems. v. The FFS approach should be extended to other parts of the province as increase in yield and decrease in input cost was observed in the present study. REFERENCES Ciszinsky, J. 1981. Influence of NPK fertilizer on the technological qualities of plant cane. Variety CB.41-76. Inst.Sug. J. 84 (3): 76-82 Crusan, A.R., G. Thiele and M. Fernandez. 1982. Farmer field schools and local agricultural research committees: Complementary plant forms for integrated decision-making in sustainable agriculture. Paper on Amric. Res. & Ext. Network. 23(4): 105-111. Fliert, E.V.D. and E. Van de Fliert. 1993. Integrated pest management: farmer field schools generate sustainable practices. Wageningen Agric. Univ. Papers. 34(3): 93-103 Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. 2006. Crop statistics in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Crop Reporting Center, Peshawar. Govt. of Pakistan 2006. Agriculture statistics of Pakistan 2004-05. Ministry of Food, Agric. & Livest. Islamabad, Pakistan. Gyali, B.K. and V.M. Salokhe. 1997. Farmers field schools: a participatory outreach research approach on safe application of agro-chemicals and bio-products. Proc. Int’l Workshop on Safe and Efficient Application of Agro-chemicals and bio products in South and Southeast Asia, Bangkok, Thailand. 14(3): 177-184. Hassan, J. 1991. Influence of NPK fertilizer on the technological qualities of plant cane, variety CB. Inst. Sug. J. 84(3): 76-82. Leosin. B., D. Jarvis, C. Almekinders and W.D. Boef. 2000. Upscaling approaches to support on-farm conservation. Plant Genet. Resources. 27(3): 141-145 Lesin. 1954. Group activities for participatory monitoring and evaluation: an adoptable model. J. Ext. Syst. 12(2): 33-44. Mangan, M.S. 1997. Chinese rice farmers, the new IPM experts. ILEIA Newslet. 13(4): 14-15. Orlando, L. and Zambello. 1980. Farmer field schools: a participatory large scale extension approach. Beraterinnen News. 1(2): 17-22. Sarhad J. Agric. Vol.28, No.1, 2012 149