چکیده مقاله :
The main purpose of this research is to determine the effective factors in adopting biological control in the Farmer Field School approach. The method used in this research is descriptive-correlation and comparative, which has been done by survey. The rice farmers of the township of Babol, Mazandaran, Iran were selected as the sample population of this research. The statistical sample of the research was 472 which included 92 rice farmers who attended the Farmer Field School and 380 people who did not participate in this course The designed questionnaire, after some modifications according to the corresponding experts’ opinion, was distributed between the two groups of rice farmers. At last, 433 collected questionnaires were analyzed by SPSS software (81 of the rice farmers who participated and 352 of them that did not participate). The findings show that the independent variables of rice farmer's attitude toward to biological control, use of information sources and knowledge of biological control determine 85.5% of the changes in the dependent variable of adopting biological control. [H, Moumeni Helali and A, Ahmadpour. The Effective Factors on the Adoption of Biological Control in Farmers' Field School by Rice Producers: The Case of Babol Township International Journal of Agricultural Science, Research and Technology, 2011; 1(4):201-206].
منابع و مأخذ:
1. Anandajayasekeram, P., Davis, K. E and Workneh, S. (2007). Farmer Field Schools: An Alternative to Existing Extension Systems? Experience from Eastern and Southern Africa. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 14(1): 81-93.
2. Braun, A. R., Thiele, G and Fernandez, M. (2000). Farmer field schools and local agricultural research committees: Complementary platforms for integrated decision-making in sustainable agriculture, Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper, No 105.
3. Bunyatta, D., Mureithi, J., Onyango, Ch and
Hgesa, F. (2006). Farmer Field School Effectiveness
for Soil and Crop Management Technologies in
Kenya. Journal of International Agric. Ext. Edu.,
13(3):47-63
4. Bunyatta, D. K., Mureithi, J. G., Onyango, C. A and Ngesa, F. U. (2005). Farmer Field School as an Effective Methodology for Disseminating Agricultural Technologies: Up-Scaling of Soil Management Technologies among Small-Scale Farmers in Trans-Nzoia District, Kenya, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference San Antonio, TX . Pp: 515-526
5. Davis, K., Nkonya, E., Ayalew, D and Kato, E. (2009). Assessing the Impact of a Farmer Field Schools Project in East Africa, Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting, InterContinental San Juan Resort, Puerto Rico. Pp: 136-148
6. Dinpanah, Gh and Alavi, V. (2008). Design of optimum model farmer field school approach on adoption of biological control in sari township. of Iranian Agric. Ext. Eco. J., 1 (2): 55-67
7. Dinpanah, Gh., Mirdamadi, M., Badragheh, A., Masoud Sinaki, J and Aboeye, F. (2010). Analysis of Effect of Farmer Field School Approach on Adoption of Biological Control on Rice Producer’ Producer’ Characteristics in Iran. American-Eurasian J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 7 (3).pp: 247-254
8. Dolly, D. (2009). An Assessment of the Implementation and Outcomes of Recent Farmer Field School to Improve Vegetable Production in Trinidad and Tobago. Journal of International Agric. Ext. Edu.,16(2): 7-20
9. Erbaugh, J. M., Donnermeyer, J and Amujal M. (2007). Assessing the Impact of Farmer Field School Participation on IPM Adoption in Uganda. Presented at the 23st Annual Meeting of the Association for International Agricultural Extension and Education (AIAEE).Polson, Montana.
10. Erbaugh, J. M., Donnermeyer, J., Amujal, M and Kidoido, M. (2010). Assessing the Impact of Farmer Field School Participation on IPM Adoptionin Uganda. DOI: 10.5191/jiaee.2010.17301., 17(3): 5-17
11. Gallagher, K. (2003). Fundamental Elements of a Farmer Field School, LEISA MAGAZINE.
12. Godtland, E., Sadoulet, E., De Janvry, A., Murgai, R and Ortiz, O. (2004). The Impact of Farmer-Field-Schools on Knowledge and Productivity:A Study of Potato Farmers in the Peruvian Andes.eScholarship University of California. [on line], Available on: http://are.berkeley.edu/~sadoulet/papers/knowledge-EDCC.PDF.
13. Kalantari, K., Asadi, A., Fami, H., Yaghobinejad, M and Chobchian, S. (2005). Evaluating the effectiveness of the projects of transferring the achievements. Abstract of scientific symposium Article, Evaluation of education-extended projects. Ministry of Agriculture: Iran.
14. Krejcie, R. V and Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. Educ. Psychol. Meas., 30(3): 608-609.
15. Mancini, F., Van Bruggen, A. H. C and Jiggins, J L. E. (2007). Evaluating Cotton Integrated Pest (IPM) Farmer Field Schools Outcomes Using the sustainable livelihoods Approach in India. Cambridge University Press. Agric (43). pp: 97-112
16. Onduru, D. D., Muchena, F. M., Gachimbi, L and Maina, F. (2002). Experience with farmer field school in Kenya: Literature review on IPM, IPPM AND INM, Integrated Nutrient Management Attain Sustainable Productivity increase in East African farming systems (INMASP).
17. Ooi, P. A and Kenmore, P. E. (2005). Impact of Educating Farmers about Biological Control in Farmer Field Schools. Second International Symposium on Biological Control of Arthropods.pp:277-342
18. Osko. T., Chizari. M and Rasoli, S. F. (2007). Investigation of farmers' field school participatory approach effect on knowledge and attitude of rice producers about Biological Control against Rice Chilo Supperssalis. Journal of Iranian Agric. Sci., 1-2(38): 109-119
19. Reddy, S.V and Suryamani, M .(2005). Impact of Farmer Field School Approach on Acquisition of Knowledge and Skills by Farmers about Cotton Pests and Other Crop Management Practices - Evidence from India, The Impact of the FAO-EU IPM Programme for Cotton in Asia (Peter A. C. Ooi, Suwanna Praneetvatakul, Hermann Waibel, Gerd Walter Echols (eds) . Development and Agricultural Economics School of Economics and Management University of Hannover,Germany.pp:61-73
20. Rustam, R. (2010). Effect of integrated pest management farmer fieldschool (IPMFFS) on
farmers’ knowledge, farmers groups’ ability, process of adoption and diffusion of IPM in Jember district, Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 2(2) .pp: 029-035, Available online http://www.academicjournals.org/jaerd
21. Witt, R., Waibel, H and Pemsl, D. E. (2006). Training intensity and diffusion of information from Farmer Field Schools in Senegal. Development and Agricultural Economics Faculty of Economics and Management University of Hannover, Germany.
