Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2014 Feb 17;369(1639):20120277.
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0277. Print 2014 Apr 5.

Reducing pesticide risks to farming communities: cotton farmer field schools in Mali

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Reducing pesticide risks to farming communities: cotton farmer field schools in Mali

William Settle et al. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. .

Abstract

We provide results from a study of two separate sectors within the cotton-growing region of southern Mali. In one sector, farmers have engaged in a farmer field school (FFS) training programme since 2003--the other not. One goal of the training was the adoption of alternatives to the use of hazardous insecticides, through integrated pest management (IPM) methods. Over an 8-year period, analysis showed that with roughly 20% of the 4324 cotton-growing farm households having undergone training, hazardous insecticide use for the entire sector fell by 92.5% compared with earlier figures and with the second (control) sector. Yields for cotton in both sectors were highly variable over time, but no evidence was found for changes in yield owing to shifts in pest management practices. Evidence is presented for a likely diffusion of new practices having taken place, from FFS participants to non-participants. We discuss strengths and weaknesses of the FFS approach, in general, and highlight the need for improved baseline survey and impact analyses to be integrated into FFS projects.

Keywords: Africa; adaptive management; cotton; farmer field school; integrated pest management; pesticides.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Percentage of pesticides purchased. Unit of measure is the total amount of pesticide purchased by farmers divided by the total volume of pesticide made available by the cotton company for that commune: a total of six communes of the sector of Bla and four communes of the control sector of Bougouni. Projections for pesticide volumes to be provided to farmers for sale by the cotton company are based on total surface area anticipated to be under cotton production for the coming season, multiplied by the number of litres of insecticide recommended per hectare (4 l ha−1 for Bla and 6 l ha−1 for Bougouni). Significant differences exist between means for the two sectors, p < 0.05, for all years except 2003 and 2004. (Online version in colour.)
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Percentage of pesticides purchased by percentage households trained in FFS. Percentage of pesticides purchased by farmers by percentage of cotton households in commune trained in FFS for the six communes of the sector of Bla. The curvilinear relationship indicates possible diffusion of practices from FFS-trained to non-trained farmers in the six communes. (Online version in colour.)
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Cotton yields by year. Cotton yields in the cotton sector of Bla vary substantially year-to-year, compared with Bougouni, most likely due to variability in rainfall. There are no apparent trends in yields over time.

References

    1. United Nations Development Programme. Africa Human Development Report. 2012. Towards a food secure future. New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
    1. Shenggen F, Mogues T, Benin S. 2009. Setting priorities for public spending for agricultural and rural development in Africa. IFPRI Policy Brief. Report no. 12 Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    1. Swanson BE. 2008. Global review of good agricultual extension and advisory service practices. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Research and Extension Division.
    1. Anderson JR, Feder G. 2004. Agricultural extension: good intentions and hard realities. World Bank Res. Observer 19, 41–60. (10.1093/wbro/lkh013) - DOI
    1. Swanson BE, Rajalahti R. 2010. Strengthening agricultural extension and advisory systems: procedures for assessing, transforming, and evaluating extension systems. Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion paper 45 Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources