Search Filter
- Publications
- Abstract of Theses and Dissertations
- Database
- Effects of Mango (Mangifera indica L.) Integrated Pest Management...
Effects of Mango (Mangifera indica L.) Integrated Pest Management Farmer Field School on Mango Production in Guimaras Island, Philippines
Dissertation Abstract:
KASALIKASAN, the Philippine program on integrated pest management (IPM), introduced IPM to the mango farmers of Guimaras Island through the Farmer Field School (FFS) in 1996. After six years of FFS training and implementation, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of IPM-FFS on farmer knowledge, practice, attitude, economic status, and health environment. A total of 150 mango farmers comprising of 75 FFS and 75 non-FFS respondents (control), were interviewed on their knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding principles of concepts of IPM, cultural management, pesticide management, health risk, environment situation, and economic status. They were also interviewed on their socio-demographic characteristics, access to information on IPM, and women’s and men’s roles in mango production, and marketing. To obtain an equal number of groups of respondents, a simple random sampling with sample size of 25 percent was taken. Parametric analysis (t-test) and correlation analysis with Statistical Packages for Social Science (SPSS) were done to test the hypotheses.
The overall knowledge of FFS respondents on mango IPM was rated high while that of the non-FFS respondents was rated from low to average. This means that the FFS had been successful in imparting knowledge on the FFS respondents. The overall levels of attitude of both types of respondents did not show any trend. This means that attendance in the FFS did not change the attitude of the FFS respondents. In practice, the FFS respondents were rated high in terms of the principles of IPM, cultural management, and pesticide management, while the non-FFS respondents were rated average. This means that FFS succeeded in convincing the FFS respondents that the practice of IPM was good for mango production. In terms of personal health risk, both groups of respondents were rated low; while on precautions taken when spraying pesticides, both groups were rated high. In terms of environment impact, both groups were rated average. The gross revenue of FFS respondents was 11 percent higher than that of the non-FFS respondents − the difference was significant at five percent level. The average rate of return to total operating cost of the FFS respondents was higher (391.58%) than that of the non-FFS respondents, (282.50%). Information on IPM received by FFS respondents from others consisted mainly of pesticide management and cultural management. The two major sources of information on pesticide management were dealers/retailers and the radio. The FFS respondents shared information with other farmers, mostly through conversations. There was only one major role of the female heads of families: to purchase family necessities. Two major roles were ascribed to the male heads of household: to buy pesticides, and to purchase fertilizer. There were two decision making activities where male and female heads make the joint decision: marketing and use of income. However, it was the husband who makes the final decision.
