Learning
Experiences of
Kebebe Ergano, Sheleme Beyene and Wondimu Wallelu
Abstract
This paper presents three
years of farmer field schools learning experiences on integrated soil nutrient
management in Kindo-Koisha district of Wolaita,
Grain and biomass yields increased with increasing
levels of inorganic fertilizers. However, the yields obtained from treatments
of organic and inorganic fertilizers combinations were not significantly different
in most cases, implying that reliable yield could be obtained as long as
comparable proportions of the two sources are used. Farmers preferred
treatments with 50:50 per cent inorganic: organic fertilizers combination on
account of cost implications of inorganic fertilizers and risk considerations. But
cohesion and sustainability of the farmer field school depends on perceived
commercial benefit in the short to medium terms.
Key words: Farmer field
school, integrated nutrient management,
In the last two decades, per capita food production has been lagging
behind the rates of population growth, and food shortage and rural poverty have
become chronic problems in
Past efforts and programmes failed mainly due to excessive emphasis given to superficially
perceived causes of land degradation such as over-cultivation, over-grazing,
over-population, deforestation, climatic factors, etc (Bojö and
Cassells, 1995). However, there is a growing consensus in recent literature
that these factors tend to be physical manifestations of underlying market and
institutional failures (Yesuf, 2005). Development and implementation of technologies
that can mitigate declining soil fertility and using strategies that fit within
farmers socio-economic settings are seen to offer potentials for increased
agricultural productivity and household income. Approaches which empower
farming communities to decide what they need in light of their own environment,
rather than making blanket recommendations
are essential. This is particularly important to develop sustainable methods
for integrated nutrient management in highly degraded highlands of Woilaita in
southern
Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) technologies and approaches that
foster the interaction between science-farmer knowledge base, collaboration
between different stakeholders; such as farmers, research, development organisations
and extension, and farmer learning processes are believed plausible in
combining technology development and social learning processes for increasing
agricultural productivity in
This paper
presents three years (2002-2005) of FFS learning experiences on INM in
Kindo-Koisha district of Wolaita,
Ground
working activities were carried out in the project site to identify constraints
and opportunities, identify possible INM technologies, and prospects for using
FFS as a platform for developing, testing and promotion of INM technologies.
The organisation of the school was pursued as a continuation of the existing
self-help groups established earlier by SOS-Sahel for soil and water
conservation activities in the cathment. The watershed management groups have
been functional for over five years conducting joint activities in watershed
protection and flood control. They have already developed lots of experience in
soil and water management.
Consultation
and familiarization meetings were held with the zonal Department of Agriculture
and the Woreda Office of Agriculture as part of ground working activities by
INMASP team to provide them information about the programme to get the
support. A series of community meetings
were conducted within the selected cathment to ensure participatory
identification and prioritization of soil management problems and their
solutions. Moreover the fora were used
to acquaint prospective participants with the basics of FFS procedures and to
gain collaborations and to enlist volunteers to the programme as
representatives of the community. Through such exercises it was learned that
farmers are enthusiastic to participate in a season long course organized on
INM. The first Farmers’
The organic-inorganic fertilizer combination trial
included the following treatments:
T1-
100% inorganic fertilizer only
T2-
75% inorganic fertilizer with 25% organic (compost)
T3-
50% combination of each
T4-
25% inorganic fertilizer with 75% organic (compost)
T5-
100% organic fertilizer (compost) only
T6-
control plot
The
indicators identified for observation by the farmers include; day to
germination/emergence, plant count, plant color, plant height, weed density,
disease incidence, number of ears/cobs, biomass yield, grain yield, soil
moisture holding capacity and soil thickness (workability). The experiment was
conducted in one central learning plot and four replicates in the fields of
participating farmers.
Farmers contributed land, compost
and provided free labor needed for the activities as per the agreement reached
at the inception of the project. Seeds, fertilizer, stationery, and other
supplementary inputs were supplied by Awassa College of Agriculture. A full
time field assistant was contracted to facilitate the field school. Moreover,
researchers from Awassa College of Agriculture took care of regular monitoring,
technical support and oversight of overall project activities.
Agro-Ecosystem
Analysis (AESA) was carried out in sub-groups with each group being assigned a
treatment in a rotating manner during each learning day. Season-long
participatory monitoring and evaluation of the trial was conducted fortnightly
in central learning plot. Observations were recorded and the results were
summarized using different formats developed for farmers and facilitators. By
means of the exercises contained in these sessions, school participants were
exposed to observations and record keeping in small groups followed by
discussions on plenary sessions, where findings of the groups were shared and
recommendations for future made.
AESA was found effective in improving decision-making skills, through a
field situation analysis by observing, drawing and presenting small group
decisions for critique in the larger group.It is encouraging to see farmers
make their own observations, record events and discuss the issues in the fields
during the FFS sessions. Special topics on INM and other topical issues to
farmers were also included in the learning process. Group dynamic activities
incorporated in the learning sessions were also helpful to establish a learning climate that is enjoyable and fruitful.
At the end of each cropping season,
farmers were able to summarize overall outcome of the trial and choose the best
treatment based on performance indicators chosen by farmers’ themselves. Sample
results are presented to substantiate the learning experiences. Increased grain and biomass yields of maize were obtained
from all treatments as compared to control. Application of organic: inorganic
fertilizers in 1:3 proportion resulted in highest biomass and grain yield in
Solkua. The grain and biomass yields increments of this treatment were about
130% and 72% over control, respectively (Table 1). The differences in grain
yields were highly significant as compared to the control and 100% fertilizer
application in the form of organic. However, there was no significant
difference between the yields obtained from the plots treated with 100%, 75%
and 50% of the fertilizer as urea. Generally, inclusion of inorganic fertilizer
in the treatments significantly increased the grain yields, whereas application
of organic fertilizer alone did not increase yield significantly.
While increasing yields with
increasing proportion of inorganic fertilizers, farmers preferred the treatment
with 50:50 organic: inorganic combination (Table 2).
This option minimizes risk and yet gives reasonable yield, which was not
significantly different from the highest yield obtained in the experiment.
Table
1: Grain and Biomass yield of maize at Solkua FFS
|
Treatments |
Grain
(t/ha) |
Biomass(t/ha) |
Grain
yield increase over control |
|
|
t/ha |
per
cent increase against control |
|||
|
T1 |
1.772 |
6.270 |
0.928 |
110 |
|
T2 |
1.944 |
6.328 |
1.100 |
130.33 |
|
T3 |
1.735 |
5.469 |
0.891 |
105.5 |
|
T4 |
1.480 |
4.981 |
0.636 |
75.3 |
|
T5 |
1.080 |
4.394 |
0.236 |
28 |
|
T6 |
0.844 |
3.680 |
- |
_ |
Other
indicators such as pest
infestation, plant leaf colour, plant health, soil moisture, weed infestation
and plant height were monitored. Farmers' observation indicated that there was
no remarkable variation among treatments regarding insect pest infestation.
Dark green colour of plants was observed on treatments that received higher
proportion of inorganic fertilizer and the colour changed to light green with
decreasing inorganic fertilizer application and yellow in control. The control
was also rated as least by farmers in terms of plant health.
On the other hand, soil moisture was the parameter
that was greatly associated with the amount of organic fertilizer. As
proportion of organic fertilizer increased retention of soil moisture after
rain, increased crop establishment and resistance to drought and ease of
ploughing after harvest were noticed. Farmers clearly indicated that despite
the crop performance the soil fertility improved with successive use of organic
fertilizers. Farmers recognized that the highest weed infestation on the
organic plots was the result of the organic materials used (Table 2).
Incomplete composting process might have not killed persistent weed seeds,
which were transported with the compost and invaded the plots. Hence, the
farmers learned the importance of using a composting material before seed
setting and/or properly killing the weed seeds in composting process.
Maize plants
grown on plots with full or relatively higher inorganic fertilizer rate were
found to be vigor and taller in height. This might be due to the availability
of nutrients from the water soluble inorganic fertilizers, whereas the rate of
release of the nutrients from organic material was relatively slow.
Table 2: Mean scores of
farmer’s evaluation of indicators -Solkua FFS
|
Treatment
|
Pests |
Plant
color |
Plant
health |
Soil moisture |
weed
infestation
|
Plant
height |
Yield |
|
T1 |
3 |
9 |
8 |
4 |
4 |
9 |
9 |
|
T2 |
4 |
9 |
7 |
6 |
5 |
8 |
8 |
|
T3 |
4 |
8 |
7 |
8 |
7 |
8 |
8 |
|
T4 |
5 |
6 |
6 |
8 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
|
T5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
9 |
9 |
4 |
5 |
|
T6 |
6 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
The indicators were ranked
from highest (10) to lowest (0).
Generally, inclusion of inorganic fertilizer in the
treatments has also significantly increased the grain and biomass yields at
Wache where as application of organic fertilizer didn't significantly increase
yields.
Farmers of Wache FFS have similarly implemented the
AESA. They have also found different treatments responding differently to the
parameters or indicators used to study the experiment. The farmers' preferences
for the three treatments with relatively highest grain and biomass yields were
more or less the same (Table 4). Based on informal discussions, however,
farmers are in favour of treatments with less inorganic fertilizer
combinations. This might be due to the high cost of fertilizers and risks
involved therein in seasons of crop failure. On the other hand, increased
application of organic fertilizer improves the chemical and physical conditions
of the soil, as was evaluated in terms of moisture retention by farmers at both
FFS (Tables 2 & 4).
Farmers indicated that plants on inorganic
fertilizer plots are resistant to pest attack as compared to those grown on higher
proportion of organic fertilizer. This might be due to the vigor of the plants
and fast early growth, which enabled them to pass the stage of susceptibility
to pests and diseases. The problem of weed infestation at Wache FFS was by much
higher than that of Solkua fields due to transportation of weed seeds from the
upper slopes by run-on, in addition to those coming with compost material to
the fields.
Table 3: Grain and Biomass
yield of Wache FFS
|
Treatment |
Grain
(t/ha) |
Biomass(t/ha) |
Grain
yield increase over control |
|
|
t/ha |
per
cent |
|||
|
T1 |
1.185 |
3.531 |
0.883 |
292.4 |
|
T2 |
1.124 |
2.963 |
0.822 |
272.2 |
|
T3 |
0.931 |
3.098 |
0.629 |
208.3 |
|
T4 |
0.543 |
1.759 |
0.241 |
79.8 |
|
T5 |
0.357 |
0.907 |
0.055 |
2 |
|
T6 |
0.302 |
0.754 |
- |
- |
Table 4: Mean scores of
farmer’s evaluation of treatments-Wache FFS
|
Treatment
|
Pests |
Plant
color |
Plant
health |
Soil moisture |
weed
infestation |
Plant
height |
Yield |
|
T1 |
4 |
9 |
8 |
8 |
6 |
9 |
9 |
|
T2 |
5 |
9 |
7 |
8 |
7 |
9 |
8 |
|
T3 |
5 |
9 |
7 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
|
T4 |
6 |
8 |
6 |
8 |
8 |
7 |
6 |
|
T5 |
4 |
6 |
4 |
9 |
9 |
4 |
4 |
|
T6 |
6 |
4 |
3 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
3 |