• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Dedication
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Abstract
 Chapter 1: Introduction
 Chapter 2: On-farm agroforestry...
 Chapter 3: On-farm trials of rodent...
 Chapter 4: Conclusion
 Berryhill pre-test/post-test survey...
 Reference
 Biographical sketch






Title: Technology transfer of cocoa management practices in agroforestry for hillside farmers in Jamaica
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00056219/00001
 Material Information
Title: Technology transfer of cocoa management practices in agroforestry for hillside farmers in Jamaica
Physical Description: xiii, 139 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Todd Bockarie, Anne H., 1961-
Publication Date: 1996
 Subjects
Subject: Agroforestry -- Jamaica   ( lcsh )
Technology transfer -- Jamaica   ( lcsh )
Cacao -- Jamaica   ( lcsh )
Forest Resources and Conservation thesis, Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Forest Resources and Conservation -- UF
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1996.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (leaves 127-138).
Statement of Responsibility: by Anne H. Todd Bockarie.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00056219
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 002100766
oclc - 35160322
notis - AKT9795

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page i-1
    Dedication
        Page ii
    Acknowledgement
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Table of Contents
        Page v
        Page vi
        Page vii
    List of Tables
        Page viii
        Page ix
    List of Figures
        Page x
        Page xi
    Abstract
        Page xii
        Page xiii
    Chapter 1: Introduction
        Page 1
        The challenge of developing sustainable land-use practices
            Page 1
        The agricultural sector
            Page 2
            Page 3
            Page 4
        The hillside agriculture project strategy
            Page 5
        Small farmers of the Rio Cobre Watershed
            Page 6
            Page 7
            Page 8
        The farming systems research & extension approach
            Page 9
        Group extension for transferring agroforestry technology
            Page 10
            Page 11
        Study objectives
            Page 12
    Chapter 2: On-farm agroforestry demonstrations : what gets learned, lost or re-invented?
        Page 13
        Introduction
            Page 13
            Adoption of agricultural technology by resource-limited farmers
                Page 14
                Page 15
                Page 16
                Page 17
            The impact of incentives and disincentive on adoption decisions
                Page 18
                Page 19
            Tree crop incentives and disincentives
                Page 20
                Page 21
            The effect of community experience on learning, adoption, and diffusion
                Page 22
            Farmers access to agricultural information and resources in Jamaica
                Page 23
                Page 24
                Page 25
            Cocoa farmers use of rehabilitation practices
                Page 26
                Page 27
            Pruning practices
                Page 28
                Page 29
                Page 30
            Fertilizer application
                Page 31
                Page 32
            Rodent pest control
                Page 33
                Page 34
        Study objectives
            Page 35
        Methods
            Page 35
            Page 36
            Page 37
            Page 38
            Statistical analysis
                Page 39
        Results
            Page 40
            Pretest results
                Page 40
                Page 41
                Page 42
                Page 43
                Page 44
                Page 45
            Five day posttest results
                Page 46
                Page 47
                Page 48
                Page 49
                Page 50
            Four month posttest results
                Page 51
                Page 52
                Page 53
                Page 54
                Page 55
                Page 56
                Page 57
                Page 58
        Discussion
            Page 59
            Characteristics of the technologies
                Page 59
                Page 60
                Page 61
                Page 62
                Page 63
                Page 64
            Gender influenced technology transfer
                Page 65
                Page 66
            Technology decisions and age
                Page 67
            Cocoa production and management choices
                Page 68
            Information sharing and exchanges
                Page 69
                Page 70
        Conclusion
            Page 71
    Chapter 3: On-farm trials of rodent control methods in intercropped cocoa fields (Theobroma cacao L.)
        Page 72
        Introduction
            Page 72
            Page 73
            Page 74
            Rodent control techniques
                Page 75
            Rodent control efforts in Jamaica
                Page 76
                Page 77
                Page 78
        Study objectives
            Page 79
        Methods
            Page 79
            The study site
                Page 79
            Field design
                Page 80
                Page 81
            Data collection and analysis
                Page 82
                Firm and farmer characteristics
                    Page 82
                Biogological measurements
                    Page 82
                    Page 83
                    Page 84
                Socio-economic measurements
                    Page 85
                    Page 86
        Results and discussion
            Page 87
            Farm and farmer characteristics
                Page 87
                Page 88
                Page 89
                Page 90
            Biological measurements
                Page 91
                Rat bait consumption
                    Page 91
                    Page 92
                    Page 93
                Tile tracking of rodent activity
                    Page 94
                    Page 95
                    Page 96
                    Page 97
                Rodent damage to cocoa pods
                    Page 98
                    Page 99
                    Page 100
                    Page 101
                    Page 102
            Socio-economic measurements
                Page 103
                Farmer technology preferences
                    Page 103
                Economic analysis
                    Page 104
                    Page 105
                    Page 106
                    Page 107
        Conclusion
            Page 108
            Page 109
            Page 110
            Page 111
            Page 112
    Chapter 4: Conclusion
        Page 113
        Research in sustainable agroforestry
            Page 113
            Page 114
            Page 115
            Page 116
            Page 117
        Implications for agroforestry extension
            Page 118
            Page 119
        Summary
            Page 120
    Berryhill pre-test/post-test survey forms
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
    Reference
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
    Biographical sketch
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
Full Text









TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER OF COCOA MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN
AGROFORESTRY FOR HILLSIDE FARMERS IN JAMAICA















By

ANNE H. TODD BOCKARIE


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1996





























Copyright 1996

by

Anne H. Todd Bockarie






















The official motto for Jamaica is, "Out of Many One People". I felt this

melting pot effect, because by the end of my stay I went from being aggressively

called, "whitey, whitey, whitey" to simply "brownie" from the higglers and folks living

along the backroads of the Rio Cobre Watershed. This work is dedicated to the

people in the villages of Jubilee Town, Crawl, Hamwalk, Redwood, Golden Grove,

Pear Tree Grove, Facey, Rosehill, Troja, Harewood, Riversdale, Hampshire, and

especially Cocoa Walk and Gobay or Berryhill, St. Catherine. Without their constant

willingness to explain their farming practices and way of life no matter how absurd

or redundant my questions may have seemed to them, this research would never have

come into being.








ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Without the steady and thoughtful support of a number of individuals and

organizations, this research would not have come to fruition. The study was

supported with funds provided by the Jamaican Agricultural Research Programme

(JARP) of the Government of Jamaica and the United States Agency for

International Development (USAID), and two programs at the University of Florida:

the Farming Systems Research and Extension Program and the School of Forest

Resources and Conservation.

In Jamaica, three Hillside Agricultural Projects (HAP) generously collaborated

in data collection and training: The MINAG/IICA Farming Systems Project, the St.

Mary Cocoa Rehabilitation Support Project and The Agro-Forest Project. The

enthusiastic support of all project personnel was whole-heartedly appreciated. The

ready comments of Mr. M. Nolan, USAID and Mr. J. Such and Mr. A. C. Allen at

HAP were most helpful. I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Dr. G. Wilson,

Dr. L. McClaren and all the JARP staff. Valuable technical advice was graciously

given by Mr. L. Fiedler at the Denver Wildlife Research Center, USDA. I wish to

thank Mr. E. Lemond, Mr. T. Creary, Mr. M. Gilzeane, Mr. R. Marzdon and all the

farmers of both Berryhill and Cocoa Walk, St. Catherine for cooperating in what to

them must have been very bizarre methods to kill rats in their cocoa fields. Mr. B.

Topper and others at the Cocoa Industry Board readily shared observations on rat

control programs and cocoa production. A very special thank you is due to Brad

Williams for helping me with the infinite minutia of doing research with a smile.








For their endless support and encouragement during all the stops and starts

on writing the final dissertation, I wish to sincerely thank my major advisor, Dr. M.

Duryea, and the members of my committee, Dr. M. Schmink, Dr. S. Russo, Dr. P.

Hildebrand and Dr. M. Flinchum. For the inspiration to study adult learning and

advice on agricultural extension research techniques in the field, I take this

opportunity to thank Dr. L. Van Crowder. The ingenuity of Jay Harrison for

statistical analysis of data was invaluable. For her tremendous flexibility in allowing

me to balance work responsibilities and the drafting of a dissertation simultaneously,

I would like to thank Dr. M. E. Swisher. Dr. A. Long was most generous in

providing me access to his computer system for producing the graphics.

Finally, I wish to express my deep-felt gratitude to my friends and confidants,

Pam Pozarny, Dee Miles, Jennifer Yeaple and Karen Kainer, who absorbed and

processed more details about both my internal state and Jamaican agriculture than

they probably ever envisioned knowing.














TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................

LIST OF TABLES ...........................................


iii

viii


LIST OF FIGURES ............................................ x

ABSTRACT ................................................. xii

CHAPTERS

1 INTRODUCTION ...................................... 1

The Challenge of Developing Sustainable Land-use
Practices .......................................... 1
The Agricultural Sector .................................... 2
The Hillside Agriculture Project Strategy ....................... 5
Small Farmers of the Rio Cobre Watershed ................... .. 6
The Farming Systems Research & Extension Approach ............ 9
Group Extension for Transferring Agroforestry Technology ........ 10
Study Objectives ................. ........................ 12


2 ON-FARM AGROFORESTRY DEMONSTRATIONS: WHAT
LEARNED, LOST OR RE-INVENTED? ...................


GETS
.. 13


Introduction ...................................... ...... 13
Non-adoption of Cocoa Technologies in Jamaica ........... 13
Adoption of Agricultural Technology by
Resource-Limited Farmers ...................... 14
The Impact of Incentives and Disincentive on Adoption
Decisions ................................... 18
Tree Crop Incentives and Disincentives ................ .. 20
The Effect of Community Experience on Learning, Adoption
and D iffusion ................................ 22
Farmers Access to Agricultural Information and Resources
in Jamaica .................................. 23
Cocoa Farmers Use of Rehabilitation Practices .............. 26








Pruning Practices ................
Fertilizer Application .............
Rodent Pest Control ..............
Study Objectives ...........................
M ethods ...............................
Statistical Analysis .....................
R results ..................................
Pretest Results .......................
Five Day Posttest Results ...............
Four Month Posttest Results .............
D discussion ................................
Characteristics of the Technologies ........
Gender Influenced Technology Transfer ....
Technology Decisions and Age ...........
Cocoa Production and Management Choices .
Information Sharing and Exchanges ........
Conclusion................................


3 ON-FARM TRIALS OF RODENT CONTROL METHODS IN
INTERCROPPED COCOA FIELDS (THEOBROMA CACAO L.) .


Introduction ..........................
Rodent Control Techniques .........
Rodent Control Efforts in Jamaica ....
Study Objectives ......................
M ethods ...........................
The Study Site ...................
Field Design ....................
Data Collection and Analysis ........
Farm and Farmer Characteristics
Biological Measurements ......
Socio-Economic Measurements .
Results and Discussion ..................
Farm and Farmer Characteristics .....
Biological Measurements ...........
Rat Bait Consumption ........
Tile Tracking of Rodent Activity
Rodent Damage to Cocoa Pods.
Socio-Economic Measurements ......
Farmer Technology Preferences
Economic Analysis ..........
Conclusion ...........................


-::--








4 CONCLUSION ........................................ 113

Research in Sustainable Agroforestry ........................ 113
Implications for Agroforestry Extension ...................... 118

APPENDIX: BERRYHILL PRE-TEST/POST-TEST SURVEY FORMS .. 121

REFERENCE LIST .......................................... 127

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................... 139













LIST OF TABLES


Table Page
2-1 Comparative analysis of technology transfer .................... 20

2-2 Sources of agricultural information ........................... 24

2-3 Membership in farmers' organizations ........................ 25

2-4 Key features of each cultural practice ......................... 39

2-5 How farmers would like to change their cocoa management
practices .............................................. 42

2-6 Sources for acquiring rodenticides for farmers .................. 46

2-7 Mean differences in knowledge scores on cocoa management
practices between the pre and posttest ........................ 49

2-8 Farmer adaptations of CIB pruning practices ................... 52

2-9 Farmer use of 12-10-18 fertilizer .......................... 57

2-10 Farmer use of chlorophacinone rat blocks ..................... 60

3-1 Rodenticide treatments used for on-farm trials .................. 81

3-2 Factors considered in calculating the economic analysis of
rodent control .......................................... 86

3-3 Cocoa pod production for trees subsampled in the on-farm
rodenticide trials ........................................ 88

3-4 Tree and crop species diversity of the highly-intercropped
on-farm trial plots in Cocoa Walk, St. Catherine, Jamaica ......... 89

3-5 Estimated odds that a tree had either none or some pod
dam age by rodents ...................................... 100








3-6a Control treatment regression coefficients for on-farm
cocoa trials ........................................... 101

3-6b Chlorophacinone (farmer) treatment regression coefficients for
on-farm cocoa trials ..................................... 101

3-6c Roseapple treatment regression coefficients for on-farm cocoa
trials ................. ............................ .. 101

3-6d Brodifacoum treatment regression coefficients for on-farm cocoa
trials ................................................ 102

3-6e Gliricidia treatment regression coefficients for on-farm cocoa
trials ................................................ 102

3-7 Incidence of black pod disease in relation to rodent damage,
plot density, species number and percent of trees with yams
trailing on them for fall crop rodent control treatments .......... 103

3-8a Economic analysis of rodent control treatments for the spring
crop ................................................ 105

3-8b Economic analysis of rodent control treatments for the fall
crop ................................................. 106

3-9 Comparison of criteria considered in choosing rodent control
treatments for highly-intercropped cocoa fields ................. 109















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure
1-1 Location of the study in Jamaica ............................

2-1 Farmers' use of fertilizer, pruning and rat control ................

2-2a Identification of gormandizers and fan branches for pruning
cocoa trees ............................................

2-2b Pruning practices for rehabilitating and maintaining cocoa
trees .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . .. . . . .

2-3 Fertilizer application recommendations for cocoa seedlings
and trees ..............................................

2-4 Directions for construction of baiting stations and rodenticide
recommendations for cocoa trees ............................

2-5 Frequency distribution of cocoa production for Berryhill,
St. C atherine ...........................................

2-6 Gender differences in cocoa production .......................

2-7 Differences in knowledge scores by attendance at training .........

2-8 Differences in knowledge scores by gender .....................

2-9 Differences in knowledge scores by age .......................

2-10 Differences in knowledge scores for large and small cocoa


producers


3-1 Differences in mean days for rat
rodenticide trials ...........

3-2 Changes in the rat activity index
Experiment 1 ..............


.............................

bait consumption in on-farm

before and after treatment for
before and after treatment for
. . . . . . . .


age
. 7

27


29


30


32


34


36

41

53

54

55


56


93


95








3-3 Monthly tile tracking of rodent activity from May to December
1992 ................................................. 96

3-4 Changes in the rat activity index for before and after treatment
for Experiment 2 ........................................ 97
















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER OF COCOA MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN
AGROFORESTRY FOR HILLSIDE FARMERS IN JAMAICA

By

ANNE H. TODD BOCKARIE

May 1996

Chairperson: Dr. Mary L. Duryea
Major Department: Forest Resources and Conservation

Cocoa (Theobroma cacao) with its associated intercrops is widely-grown by

hillside farmers in St. Catherine, Jamaica. The MINAG/USAID Hillside Agriculture

Project works with farmers to rehabilitate hurricane-damaged trees and increase

cocoa yields. A pretest/post-test quasi-experimental design was used to assess the

impact of group demonstrations on farmers' knowledge and attitudes for: 1) fertilizer

application, 2) pruning and 3) rodent control. Increase in farmers' knowledge varied

by gender, age and cocoa production for all three practices after the training. These

practices were designed to increase cocoa production which was not the farmers'

main objective in growing cocoa. Labor and cost were important evaluation criteria

used by farmers in assessing the technologies.








Dissatisfaction with rodent control methods and continuing crop losses in

cocoa by the roof rat (Rattus rattus L.) pointed to the need for on-farm evaluations.

Rodent control practices were compared for two seasons using agronomic trials in

highly-intercropped cocoa fields. Two local rodenticides were prepared: 1) root

extract from the roseapple tree (Syzygium jambos L. Alston) and 2) fermented leaves

of gliricidia (Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Walp.). Two commercially-manufactured baits

were tested: 1) chlorophacinone and 2) brodifacoum. Bait consumption, rodent

activity based on tile tracking, rat damage to pods, incidence of black pod disease

(Phytophthora palmivora (Butler) Butler), an economic analysis and farmer use

preferences were used to evaluate treatment effectiveness. All bait materials were

readily consumed in the field. The chlorophacinone, brodifacoum and roseapple

treatments all decreased rat activity and pod damage. Pod damage caused by P.

palmivora decreased with the roseapple, gliricidia and brodifacoum treatments for

plots with fewer yams and a lower plant density. Brodifacoum and roseapple

treatments were ranked best overall. However, not using any rodent control was also

a reasonable choice for farmers.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION


The Challenge of Developing Sustainable Land-Use Practices


The 1990s ushered in an ecological decade in which the agricultural research

community was forced to confront the inevitable fact that agricultural technologies

are not socially or environmentally neutral (Muller and Scherr, 1990; Pesek, 1994).

Wilken (1991) points out that sustainability is paramount in agricultural development

for this century and beyond. The 1990 Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade

Act of the United States Congress clearly recognized the message of Rachel Carson's

book, Silent Spring, from more than a decade ago:

Sustainable agriculture is an integrated system of plant and animal production
having a site specific application that will, over the long term, satisfy human food and
fiber needs; enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which
the agricultural economy depends; make the most efficient use of non-renewable
resources and on-farm/ranch resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural
biological cycles and controls; sustain the economic viability of farm/ranch
operations; and enhance the quality of life for farmers/ranchers and society as a
whole (U.S. Congress, 1990, p. 6).

Sustainable agriculture requires a drastic change in the traditional research

and extension process. Greater demands are placed on research and extension

services to meet the needs of multiple users who require a range of alternative

technologies designed to match differing goals and objectives, which are

environmentally-friendly and socially just. Alternatives which rely on biological














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION


The Challenge of Developing Sustainable Land-Use Practices


The 1990s ushered in an ecological decade in which the agricultural research

community was forced to confront the inevitable fact that agricultural technologies

are not socially or environmentally neutral (Muller and Scherr, 1990; Pesek, 1994).

Wilken (1991) points out that sustainability is paramount in agricultural development

for this century and beyond. The 1990 Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade

Act of the United States Congress clearly recognized the message of Rachel Carson's

book, Silent Spring, from more than a decade ago:

Sustainable agriculture is an integrated system of plant and animal production
having a site specific application that will, over the long term, satisfy human food and
fiber needs; enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which
the agricultural economy depends; make the most efficient use of non-renewable
resources and on-farm/ranch resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural
biological cycles and controls; sustain the economic viability of farm/ranch
operations; and enhance the quality of life for farmers/ranchers and society as a
whole (U.S. Congress, 1990, p. 6).

Sustainable agriculture requires a drastic change in the traditional research

and extension process. Greater demands are placed on research and extension

services to meet the needs of multiple users who require a range of alternative

technologies designed to match differing goals and objectives, which are

environmentally-friendly and socially just. Alternatives which rely on biological








2

processes such as integrated pest management, agroforestry and organic farming need

further research. Extension services are exploring mass media and group methods

to target groups of farmers with specific information.

As different segments of society demand change and farmers integrate a

greater variety of management objectives, the demands on research and extension

services worldwide exponentially increase. Information about the plant-animal-

human interactions as well as the social, environmental and economic impact of a

given technology for a multitude of farming systems is necessary. Specialists in a

wide variety of fields find that they must work together in order to meet the demands

for well-developed, sustainable alternative technologies. No single discipline contains

the required research and extension skills to adequately address the complexity of

issues involved. For example, private land-owners in Florida's Forest Stewardship

program work with professionals from forestry, wildlife, soil conservation, and

agriculture to develop management plans for multiple objectives including

recreational use, timber production, wildlife protection, water quality, soil

conservation and grazing (Todd Bockarie and Duryea, 1995).


The Agricultural Sector


Agricultural professionals in Jamaica are particularly challenged in their

development of sustainable land-use practices. Hurricane damage, intensive

cultivation of steeply sloping fragile lands, deforestation at a rate of 3.3 % per year

between 1980-1986, soil erosion and water management problems, a marked decrease








3
in agricultural productivity, and economic hardship all impact resource-limited farm

families in Jamaica (Armstrong et al., 1986; Eyre, 1991). Extensive land-use

classification studies indicate that agroforestry techniques which deliberately

incorporate trees into the current cropping patterns or maintain and rehabilitate

existing trees offer sustainable land management alternatives to the environmental

degradation (Rural Physical Planning Division 1987; McKenzie, 1993).

The agricultural sector constitutes the backbone of the Jamaican economy both

for domestic food consumption and export income. Sugarcane and banana

contributed 78% of the foreign exchange earnings in the agricultural sector in 1991

(Planning Institute of Jamaica, 1991). Cocoa, coffee, citrus, coconut, pimento and

other tree crops have traditionally been important agricultural exports. Although

Jamaica is not one of the largest producers of cocoa on the international market,

cocoa is the nation's fourth largest export crop earning US$7.1 million in foreign

exchange in 1987 (Planning Institute of Jamaica, 1987).

In 1990, the Jamaican population was estimated to be 48% rural (Statistical

Institute of Jamaica-STATIN, 1990). More than 80% of farms are owned by

smallholders with parcels averaging less than 2 ha per farm. Small farmers make

important contributions to the agricultural sector. For example, they produced 76%

of the leading export crop, sugarcane (IICA, 1989), and accounted for over 75% of

the country's total cocoa production (Fagan, 1984). In addition to export earnings,

small farmers comprise the majority of domestic food producers with 74.2% owning

farms under 11 ha.








4

Jamaica's economy suffered a setback in the agricultural, manufacturing and

tourism sectors from the $500 million in property damage caused by Hurricane

Gilbert in late 1988 (STATIN, 1989). Small hillside farmers were particularly

affected by Gilbert due to crop damage and losses caused by high winds, land slides

and associated flooding.

Since 1983, the country has been in the process of economic structural

adjustment. The move to a market driven economy has had a negative impact on

income distribution and the rural poor, including small farmers (Bullock, 1993).

Farmers cited crop losses due to disease, marketing problems and credit as the major

constraints to increasing agricultural production. Both men and women placed access

to money and employment as the biggest obstacles in their lives (Harris-Williams,

1985).

The Hillside Agriculture Project (HAP) baseline survey indicated that 19%

of farmers in the project area were women (HAP, 1990). Ninety percent of women

farmers are concentrated on microplots of less than 2 ha (IICA/MINAG, 1988). It

has been estimated that married women pay for 63% of the household expenses and

single women for 80% (Bolles, 1983). Food, clothing, school fees, medical services

and taxes are a few examples of the items a woman's income purchases for the family

(Chaney, 1983). Poor women who earn less than J$400/week struggle to feed their

families. The weekly cost of food for a family of five rose from J$24 in 1979 to

J$128 in 1985 (Davies and Anderson, 1987). Informal marketing of produce by

women, "higglers", is one of the common means by which women supplement their








5
income and account for 80% of the distribution of all small farm produce (Lewars,

1981). Women's active contribution to the agricultural sector and rural farm family

must be considered in technology development.


The Hillside Agriculture Project Strategy


The Hillside Agriculture Project (HAP) sponsored by the Ministry of

Agriculture (MINAG) and the United States Agency for International Development

(USAID), is promoting community-based projects which contain the following

components: 1) perennial cropping, 2) a wide range of agroforestry techniques to

maintain and rehabilitate tree crops among rural hillside farmers and 3) community

participation (HAP, 1986). The objective of the project is to alleviate the

degradation of the hillside environment by fostering sustainable land-use practices.

The HAP project has incorporated a farmer-oriented approach by mandating

active farmer participation in all sub-project activities (Koehn et al., 1989). Each

sub-project within HAP has developed its own extension strategy to involve farmers

directly in the process of technology transfer. This study focuses on two of the

techniques used: on-farm trials to evaluate farmer vs. researcher practices and group

training demonstrations.

The Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture (IICA) together

with the Ministry of Agriculture are coordinating a Farming System Research &

Extension (FSRE) sub-project to mobilize farmer support for adapting new

agroforestry technologies by organizing farm groups, promoting farmer training and








6
conducting on-farm trials for establishment of cocoa/coffee-plantain-vegetable

intercropping and rehabilitation of existing cocoa/coffee plantations. IICA/MINAG

personnel are collecting biological and socio-economic data on the differences

between farmer practices, alternative practices and improved methods on 90 farms.

The St. Mary Cocoa Rehabilitation Sub-project which is coordinated by the

Cocoa Industry Board (CIB) uses the group method as their main extension

technique for transferring new cocoa cultural practices to farmers. The St. Mary

Cocoa Rehabilitation sub-project has a very focused scope of work centered

exclusively on improving extension services to farmers for rehabilitation of existing

cocoa plantations.


Small Farmers of the Rio Cobre Watershed


Both the IICA/MINAG Farming Systems sub-project and the St. Mary Cocoa

Rehabilitation sub-project are located in the Rio Cobre Watershed. The Rio Cobre

Watershed straddles the boundaries of the Parishes of St. Catherine, St. Ann and St.

Mary (Fig. 1-1). The hilly terrain is covered by tree crops such as coffee and cocoa

combined with more intensively-managed legumes and tubers (IICA/MINAG, 1988).

The Ministry of Agriculture has subdivided the region into 20 extension areas and

estimates that there are 7,878 farmers. More than 80% of the farms are owned by

smallholders with parcels averaging less than 2.5 ha per farm. The average age of

farmers is 55 years (IICA, 1989; Todd Bockarie, 1993). Pests and diseases, lack of

access to inputs, credit or labor, larceny and low productivity are common problems









WEST INDIES


Bahama
Islands
o


%2. .4


u ... .. .Jamaica


Dominican
Republic


Figure 1-1. Jamaica is the third largest island (10,939.7 km2) in the Caribbean and
is located between latitudes 17042'- 18026'N and longitudes 76011'- 78022'W. The
study was located within the MINAG/IICA Hillside Agricultural Sub-Project area
which is indicated by the crosshatched block.


CASIAE S31A


"^~
~








8
for these older farmers. Infrastructure availability and marketing options also limit

farm improvements. The shortage of labor, advancing age of most farmers, lack of

farm records and few incentives for farmers to collectively tackle larger community

issues such as watershed management or pest control are factors specific to the Rio

Cobre area. These constraints may require modifications of agroforestry technologies

developed on-station to farmer conditions. It may also be the case that currently

available technologies are completely inappropriate for farmers in this hillside

location. Many of the technologies available for extension to farmers were developed

by commodity boards with a single-species focus, unlike the highly-intercropped

conditions of smallholders. Increased yield of a single crop is often not the

production goal of these farmers compared to large commercial plantations. There

is an inherent assumption in agricultural research and extension in Jamaica that

technologies developed on-station are equally applicable for all farm conditions and

production goals.

Several evaluations of agricultural development projects in Jamaica have

shown that when the project ends, farmers do not continue to use many of the

technologies introduced (Harris-Williams, 1985; Armstrong et al., 1986; Louden,

1988). This raises a number of questions. Do farmers actually learn new functional

skills which are relevant to the conditions in which they operate? Have project

inputs created an artificial situation which is physically impossible to maintain? Are

technologies developed by researchers on-station in Jamaica and other areas of the

Caribbean appropriate to the production goals of hillside farmers in the areas?










The Farming Systems Research & Extension Approach


The premise of FSRE is that through carefully placed on-farm trials,

technology will be tested under a variety of farmer conditions (Hildebrand, 1986).

Farmers within a community will be either directly involved in managing the plots

or indirectly involved by watching other farmers do the new techniques. It is

assumed that a large number of people within the community will quickly adopt the

technology because those few individuals who were initially observers will be able to

apply the technology after only a few attempts. End-users are actively involved in

the research and development process so that the criteria to judge the effectiveness

of a practice includes not only researcher-defined biological and socioeconomic

factors, but also farmer-generated criteria and practices.

Scientists and farmers often classify the same resource differently. For

example, soil scientists in Botswana analyzed the percentage parts of sand, clay and

silt to identify a given loam soil type. In contrast, farmers in the area had more

discrete categories based on small differences in topography and water-holding

capacity between soils of a catena that they used in choosing which crops should be

grown in the area (Edwards, 1987).

Farmers' evaluation and classification criteria often have both a functional and

cultural component. Farmers in Sierra Leone, for example, use seed rice for barter,

credit and gifts. They seldom take the time to rogue seed rice that is destined for

distant relatives' fields in the form of credit, whereas great care is taken in isolating

a special white-grained variety which is given as a gift to the chief (Richards, 1986).








10
Conclusions by field workers in many different FSRE programs are that the

overall adoption rate for the community as a whole remains low, which leads to

questions concerning both the relevancy of the technology and the extension

techniques (Ortiz and Meneses, 1989; Lightfoot, 1986). Further information is

needed to determine the effect of this approach in the project.

Studies in other regions have shown that several mechanisms can be used to

overcome the lack of permanence of project efforts. It is believed that more

sustainable benefits can be realized by emphasizing 1) a thorough analysis of the

constraints and development potentials of the farming system within the social

context of the community (Rocheleau, 1987), 2) the participation of farmers in all

phases of the project including planning and evaluation (Ortiz, 1989), 3) the

development of community organizations for getting needed inputs and marketing

products (Hoskins, 1987), and 4) linking these newly-formed community groups with

already established institutions such as commodity boards (Uphoff, 1986).


Group Extension for Transferring Agroforestry Technology


Agricultural extension services in many countries are severely limited by

personnel shortages, lack of transportation, shrinking budgets and restricted training

opportunities. The ratio of farmers to extension agents in many cases is extremely

high, thereby prohibiting individual visits to every farmer. Many countries have

turned to mass media campaigns using radio, television, computers and

telecommunications to reach a large number of producers. Agricultural








11

communications specialists segment the farm population based on demographic

characteristics of growers and then determine what is the best dissemination strategy

for getting the salient information or skill to that particular group.

Jamaica is undergoing the same transition in extension programming.

Beginning in the 1980s until the present, Jamaica has experienced an economic crisis

which has placed severe limitations on government services. To revitalize the

agricultural sector, the Government of Jamaica deregulated the export marketing

process for many horticultural products and restructured the Ministry of Agriculture.

As a result of reduced expenditures, the Extension Service downsized its professional

staff from 400 to 200 employees (Venezian, Bueno and Hamilton, 1988). However,

the promotion of agroforestry practices inherently requires more from extension

services, which creates a dilemma for agents working with the Hillside Agricultural

Project. The challenge is to effectively reach more farmers with appropriate

information about a multitude of crops and production techniques with fewer human

and financial resources.

Group extension offers an alternative mode for reaching a large number of

farmers, when personnel and transportation are limited. Studies have shown that

when a feedback mechanism in which farmers and agents are free to exchange

information is included, understanding and use of a given agricultural technology are

more rapid. For example, farmers who participated in regular group field hearings

in Brazil had greater success in using livestock technology (Baker, Knipscheer and

De Souza Neto, 1988). Learning and the transfer of technology may not flow only








12

from the extension agent to the farmer. Group meetings may also result in the

extension agent and research personnel learning about how farmers have adapted

existing recommendations or created locally adapted alternative technologies. For

example, farmers in Colombia suggested several new combinations of rock phosphate

with chicken manure to substitute for expensive commercial fertilizers (Ashby, 1986).

The St. Mary Cocoa Rehabilitation Sub-project of HAP uses a hands-on group

approach as their main extension technique for transferring new cocoa cultural

practices to farmers due to the limited number of personnel and the large number

of farmers which must be serviced (agent to farmer ratio of 1:250). Administered by

the Cocoa Industry Board (CIB), the St. Mary Cocoa Rehabilitation sub-project has

a very focused scope of work centered exclusively on improving extension services to

farmers for rehabilitation of existing cocoa plantations.


Study Objectives


The objectives of the present study were twofold. First, changes in farmers

knowledge and application of three cocoa cultural practices were used to evaluate

whether group on-farm demonstrations were an effective agroforestry extension

strategy for targeting farmers in remote rural areas. Second, the efficacy of farmer

and researcher methods for rat control practices were compared using agronomic

trials in highly-intercropped cocoa fields. The question asked was whether

differences in farmers' and researchers' social, economic and biological evaluation

criteria could explain the lack of acceptability of these practices to hillside farmers.














CHAPTER 2
USING GROUP FIELD DAYS FOR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER:
WHAT GETS LEARNED, LOST, OR RE-INVENTED?


Introduction


Non-adoption of Cocoa Technologies in Jamaica


Tree crop production is an important source of revenue for hillside producers

in North Central Jamaica. A recent survey in N.E. St. Catherine by IICA indicated

that 75% of the farmers in the area grow cocoa with its associated intercrops of

banana, yam, coconuts, avocado and timber species (Grant, 1991). Cocoa farmers

in the Richmond and N.E. St. Catherine Cocoa Growers Cooperatives located on the

border between the Parishes of St. Mary and St. Catherine have consistently supplied

the bulk of wet cocoa beans to the Cocoa Industry Board fermentary in Richmond

(CIB, 1993). In 1988, Hurricane Gilbert had a devastating effect on production,

damaging both property and trees. In an effort to speed the rehabilitation of existing

fields, establishment of new acreage and transfer of information on cultural practices

(fertilization, pruning, pest control), the Hillside Agriculture Project has been

employing a range of different strategies to assist hillside farmers. Technology

transfer strategies include 1) demonstration farms, 2) delivery of government-

subsidized inputs (planting materials, fertilizer, rat bait, tools), 3) group skills














CHAPTER 2
USING GROUP FIELD DAYS FOR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER:
WHAT GETS LEARNED, LOST, OR RE-INVENTED?


Introduction


Non-adoption of Cocoa Technologies in Jamaica


Tree crop production is an important source of revenue for hillside producers

in North Central Jamaica. A recent survey in N.E. St. Catherine by IICA indicated

that 75% of the farmers in the area grow cocoa with its associated intercrops of

banana, yam, coconuts, avocado and timber species (Grant, 1991). Cocoa farmers

in the Richmond and N.E. St. Catherine Cocoa Growers Cooperatives located on the

border between the Parishes of St. Mary and St. Catherine have consistently supplied

the bulk of wet cocoa beans to the Cocoa Industry Board fermentary in Richmond

(CIB, 1993). In 1988, Hurricane Gilbert had a devastating effect on production,

damaging both property and trees. In an effort to speed the rehabilitation of existing

fields, establishment of new acreage and transfer of information on cultural practices

(fertilization, pruning, pest control), the Hillside Agriculture Project has been

employing a range of different strategies to assist hillside farmers. Technology

transfer strategies include 1) demonstration farms, 2) delivery of government-

subsidized inputs (planting materials, fertilizer, rat bait, tools), 3) group skills








14
training, 4) informational meetings and 5) access to commercial inputs at cost. It is

assumed that these strategies will create a much needed, multiplier effect by

prompting other non-participant farmers to imitate the demonstration farmers' plots

and through informal sharing of information between the direct beneficiaries and the

rest of the community.

One HAP sub-project relies exclusively on group field training days to

practically demonstrate new cultural practices for tree crops. The St. Mary Cocoa

Rehabilitation Sub-project uses the group method as their main extension technique

for transferring new cocoa cultural practices to farmers because of the limited

number of personnel and large number of farmers which must be serviced (agent to

farmer ratio of 1:250). The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of

attending a single field training day on the knowledge, attitudes and practices of

cocoa farmers participating in the St. Mary Cocoa Rehabilitation sub-project.


Adoption of Agricultural Technology by Resource-Limited Farmers


Extension agents complain about the under-management or non-management

of cocoa by farmers in the area. They attribute the non-use of cultural practices to

older farmers who decide not to invest their limited labor and capital resources into

more intensive cocoa management practices because they are unwilling to change or

take risks. Other explanations may rest on differences between farmers' and

extension agents' evaluation criteria of cocoa management practices or differences

between what the agents and researchers perceive as technologies that fit the








15
farmers' goals and objectives in farming and their actual production goals. In

addition, the long return to investment for tree crops, low price of cocoa, cost, labor

requirement and limited availability of inputs may all be criteria that farmers use in

deciding not to apply cocoa management techniques. Younger farmers may place

a higher value on short-term benefits derived from planting annuals and do not have

the resources to wait several years for profits to accrue from tree crops. In addition,

there is much debate about how much farmers already know about the cultural

practices. Many farmers in the area have been farming for more than 40 years and

may have developed management practices tailored to their particular agroecological

and socioeconomic situations which vary widely from the recommended practices

promoted by the Cocoa Industry Board and the Government of Jamaica.

An alternative hypothesis is that farmers continue to degrade their resources

because of the ecological, technological and social constraints which they face.

Uncertain environments (hurricanes, pest, diseases, droughts, floods and landslips)

combined with a fluctuating market structure and lack of extension services and

available inputs do not allow farmers to secure enough income from one crop. The

income derived from the two cocoa crops and the other perennial intercrops is not

sufficient to maintain the farmer throughout the year. Therefore, time, labor and

capital must be invested in other crops which are marketable throughout the year.

In order to generate sufficient income and food, farmers risk planting annual crops

on the steeply sloping hillsides resulting in complete loss of topsoil and severe

erosion during the rainy season.








16
Lack of services for remote rural farmers has long historical roots in Jamaica.

A plethora of organizations exist, but few consistently provide extension services and

inputs (Goldsmith, 1986). Extension services in Jamaica are organized by commodity

so that for each major export crop, (e.g. coffee, cocoa, bananas, coconuts), there is

a separate commodity board in charge of research and extension which must liaise

with both farmers and the Ministry of Agriculture. Therefore, smallholders that

intercrop must interact with many separate commodity boards in order to obtain

extension services. Secondly, the research that is produced by the different

commodity boards focuses on management requirements for large-scale

monocropping as opposed to intercropping making it questionable for use by

smallholders.

Little is known about evaluation criteria used to judge the acceptability of

management practices by smallholders in the area nor how information flows through

a community. Information on the incentives and disincentives for adopting cocoa

rehabilitation practices is needed. Communities are heterogenous. Garret (1984)

points out the need to consider the socioeconomic characteristics of a given

technology in relation to farmers' mode of production. Different types of farmers

exist in a community, each strata having different access to and control over

production resources and different production objectives. Garret suggests as a

general framework, that labor allocation and primary income source are two criteria

which can be employed to stratify producers. She suggests that at least three

different strata may be present: 1) petty commodity producers who rely on hired








17
labor and use farm production to generate cash to purchase food, 2) subsistence

producers who rely on labor exchanges, while the family farm production is used for

home consumption with surpluses sold to the market to- generate cash, and 3)

semiproletarian producers who work for wages, and farm production is used to

supplement wages. Ashby (1982) also points to different modes of production of

farmers in rural areas of Colombia in relation to adoption and diffusion of new

agricultural technology. These examples all illustrate that farmers have different

access to both financial and social resources which influences the degree to which

they adopt or value a given technology.

Studies have shown that the rate and intensity of adoption of new agricultural

technologies (fertilizer or high-yielding varieties) by individual farmers and the

diffusion of the new technology within the community is related to a wide range of

factors. Rogers (1983) provides an overview of research findings to date which

pinpoints the following five categories as influencing the rate of technology adoption:

1) perceived attributes of the technology (i.e., relative advantage, compatibility,

complexity, trialability, observability), 2) whether the decision to adopt is individual,

collective or dictated by others, 3) access to mass media or interpersonal

communication channels, 4) connectedness and norms of the social system and 5)

degree of interaction with a change agent. Adoption by an individual farmer can be

divided into several stages including: awareness, interest, evaluation/comparison,

trial, use, and re-invention. The adoption process can be subdivided into three

separate components: attitudes, skills and knowledge. Diffusion is the dissemination








18

of agricultural technologies within a community and can be influenced by the degree

of fit between a farmer's objectives, access to resources (farm size, information,

credit, labor, capital, markets), constraints and the technology offered. The rate of

diffusion may be influenced by the homogeneity of farmers in an area, level of

development of interpersonal communication networks, demonstration value of the

technology (land area planted to crop in. the area), and access to sources of

agricultural information (formal links to the extension service and informal links

within a community such as neighbors, work groups, or social groups).

Rogers (1983) describes the decision to adopt as a process consisting of

knowledge of technology, development of an attitude towards the technology via

technical information from extension agents and evaluative information on the

relative advantages/disadvantages from peers, a decision to adopt or reject, the

physical act of implementing the technology and finally a confirmation of its benefits

to the farmer.


The Impact of Incentives and Disincentives on Adoption Decisions


Many scholars (Leagans, 1979; Lippitt et al., 1958) divide adoption of

technology into an internal component that consists of a) the farmer's perception of

the incentives and disincentives associated with a technology (attitudes, beliefs,

norms) and b) the farmer possessing the necessary knowledge and skills to perform

the technology and an external component or physical act which is dependent on

several external prerequisites in the environment under which the farmer operates.








19
The social, communication and economic dimensions tend to be the most significant.

Mellor (1968) presents four major prerequisites to adoption: 1) an incentive system

that encourages acceptance of innovations, 2) locally relevant technology, 3) an

education system to teach farmers how to choose and adapt technology to specific

conditions, and 4) the efficient supply to farmers of inputs required to implement the

technology. Coughenour (1984) emphasizes the importance of farmer perceptions

and valuations of environmental resources which are directly related to their goals,

perceived needs and expected benefits which are used in decision-making. Ashby

(1985) highlights the interrelationships between biophysical and institutional

environments which shape the type of farm organization and valuation of natural

resources by farmers. For example, institutional incentives such as the national crop

pricing structure, expanding market demands and credit policy combined with

disincentives such as land tenure constraints and the rising cost of fertilizer resulted

in encouraging smallholders in Colombia to use destructive soil management

practices in clearing highly-erodible land for cassava production.

Categories which are often listed for incentives/disincentives include

educational, physical, economic, social, biological, technological, institutional, political

and religious. Leagans (1979) compares the most frequently mentioned factors for

five technology transfer studies of improved seed, fertilizer, insecticides, soil tests,

strip-cropping, land preparation and dry-season cropping (Table 2-1). Using Leagans'

central theory model, the relative importance of various factors in relation to

adoption can be defined for a particular group of farmers.








20
Table 2-1. A comparative analysis of agricultural technology transfer studies
(Leagans, 1979, p. 49). Farmers listed both incentives (N=585) and disincentives
(N = 690).


Incentives % of farmers
Increases crop yield 73
Increases income 56
Used by neighbors 45
Labor available 40
Technical advice available 40
Credit available 20
Better quality of seed 19
Supply of inputs on time 17
Saved labor 13
Not risky 12
Simple to adopt 10
Irrigation water available 6
Recognition in community 6


Disincentives % of farmers
Lack of technical guidance 37
Lack of irrigation water 32
More labor required 30
Lack of knowledge 28
Lack of credit 26
Too many pests and diseases 26
Supplies not on time 23
Inadequate equipment 21
Too expensive 20
Very complex 15
Neighbors do not use 12
Land not adequate 10
Labor not available/risky 9


Tree Crop Incentives and Disincentives


The adoption and diffusion of tree crop technology may differ from traditional

agricultural adoption due to constraints inherent in perennial cropping systems.

Structural constraints such as the amount of land, laws governing the authority to

manage trees on individual land, tenure, investment costs, or labor requirements may

act as barriers to the use of new tree crop practices by farmers (Foley and Barnard,

1984; Bruce and Noronha, 1987; Gregerson et al., 1989). Social factors such as time

required to accrue benefits, customary law, theft, market fluctuations, or gender

divisions of labor, land and access to or control over resources all may be more

pronounced for perennial crops. In many countries it is common for a large number

of people to have ownership, management, harvesting and/or use-rights for different








21

products from a single multiple-use species; whereas another set of people may be

decision-makers regarding the agricultural intercrops and the land on which the tree

is planted (Fortmann, 1987). Agroforestry places a heavy demand on research and

extension services and requires changes in methodology. There is limited scientific

information on the interaction between species and the best management practices

for intercropping; furthermore it takes a considerable amount of time to gather such

data from on-station or on-farm experiments. Therefore, both research and extension

agents must rely heavily on obtaining a wide range of agronomic information directly

from farmers. For traditional forestry extension agents this means a dramatic shift

for them from being the policemen of forest reserves to the promoters of tree

planting on farms. Finally, due to the highly individualized nature of tree crop

management for multiple products which results from tremendous heterogeneity of

production goals among farmers in an area, extension agents must become a literal

encyclopedia of crops, trees, livestock and their interactions.

Incentives which have been listed in the literature for tree crops include clear

tenure arrangements, multiple-use species, soil protection, increased fertility,

alleviation of risk associated with fluctuating markets or unstable climates, and

increased farm productivity. Disincentives include extension staff with the dual role

of forest law enforcement and tree crop promotion, lack of tenure, and no clear use

or market for products.

In Jamaica, possible incentives for cocoa rehabilitation practices could include

bringing fallow land back into production, flexibility of application of practices,








22
extension services and inputs available from HAP projects, and investment in a

savings source because tree crops tend to weather disasters well. Lack of clear land

title, increased labor requirements, costs, safety, additional time requirements, long

time lag to realize benefits, and input sources too far or too expensive are some of

the potential disincentives.


The Effect of Community Experience on Learning. Adoption and Diffusion


Wake, Hildebrand and Kiker (1988) define three different types of learning

that may occur in agricultural settings: 1) informational learning in which basic

information about a technology is obtained from secondary sources such as media or

by word of mouth, 2) observational learning in which a farmer directly observes a

technology put in practice and 3) experiential learning in which a farmer learns by

actually using the technology. Both marketing and diffusion studies by a number of

different authors have attempted to quantify the spread of evaluative information in

a community by word of mouth via informal communication networks. Arndt (1967)

used a controlled experiment to delineate the effect of positive and negative

comments, perceived risk, and integration into the social network on residents'

purchasing patterns of a new food product in an apartment complex. Favorable

comments had a positive impact on the number of product purchasers as did the

degree of integration into the social system. Perrin and Winkelman (1976) noted

that as a technology became more common in an area, the costs associated with

acquiring information about the technology decreased. They assumed that this was








23
a function of both greater availability of public services and aggregate community

experience. Ashby (1982) hypothesized that part of the effect of aggregate

community experience comes indirectly from the attributes of the technology such as

sharing planting materials, timing of irrigation water, and the need to synchronize

maturation dates to avoid losses.


Farmers' Access to Agricultural Information and Resources in Jamaica


Farmers gather information on new agricultural practices from a plethora of

sources (Table 2-2) (Todd Bockarie, 1993). Radio, friends or relatives, and referring

to the Farmers' Almanac published annually by the Ministry of Agriculture are the

most important sources of agricultural information in Jamaica irrespective of farm

size, age or gender.

Even though extension agents complained about farmers' non-use of new

techniques for cocoa, 97% of farmers in a recent survey (N = 273) said that they

would be willing to try new agricultural methods (Todd Bockarie, 1993). Yet, only

40% of the farmers reported ever having acted on extension advice that they had

received in the past. In general, few farmers said that they disagreed with the advice

that they had been given because the majority (88%) said they had not received any

visits or advice from an agricultural officer. There were statistically significant

differences in use of advice from agricultural officers by both gender and farm size.

Fewer women (25%) used advice from agricultural officers than men (45%). Half

of the farmers who cultivated large or medium-sized parcels (over 2.3 ha) used








24

Table 2-2. Sources of agricultural information for a stratified random sample of 273
farmers in the Rio Cobre Watershed of St. Catherine, Jamaica.

SOURCE OF INFORMATION FREQUENCY PERCENT
Radio 133 21
Friends/relatives 113 18
McDonald/Farmers' Almanac 105 17
Agricultural officer 76 12
Jamaican Agricultural Society 57 9
Television 45 7
Farmer training 37 6
Newspaper 26 4
Own experience 21 3
Extension meeting 6 1
Banana Board 2 > 1
School 1 > 1
Extension booklet 1 > 1
Received no information 1 > 1
TOTAL 624 100


extension advice compared to only a third of those farming smaller parcels (less then

2.3 ha). It is important to note these differences may be due in part to the

appropriateness of extension recommendations to the farmers' production goals and

constraints.

Seventy percent of the farmers were members of a farmers' organization

(Table 2-3). Nine percent of the members held an executive office or worked as a

sales agent for the organization. The median duration of membership in any of the








25
organizations was 10 years with a range from a few months to 60 years. Farmers

differed in their reasons for membership, but marketing was the main reason for

belonging to the commodity board supported organizations. The primary reason for

membership in other organizations included the following: JAS members cited



Table 2-3. Membership in farmers' organizations for a stratified random sample of
273 farmers in the Rio Cobre Watershed of St. Catherine, Jamaica.


ORGANIZATION FREQUENCY PERCENT
Cocoa Cooperative 140 40
Coffee Cooperative 70 20
Jamaican Agricultural Society (JAS) 68 20
Peoples Cooperative Bank (P. C.) 16 5
All Island Banana Growers 14 4
Association (AIBGA)
Coconut Growers Association 14 4
Hillside Agriculture Sub-project (HASP) (IICA) 13 3
Citrus Growers Association 7 2
Jamaican Livestock Association (JLA) 3 1
All Island Cane Growers 2 > 1
Association (AICGA)
TOTAL 347 100


information (49%) and advice (29%), JLA for information (100%), P.C. Bank for

credit (86%) and the Hillside Agriculture Sub-project of IICA for inputs (69%).

In addition, t-tests showed that the number, type and duration of membership

in a farmers' organization varied by gender, farm size and age. Men belonged on








26

average for 15 years compared to 13 years for women. Men were members in 2.4

organizations whereas women belonged to 1.9. Women were more likely to belong

to: Cocoa Cooperative, HASP, JLA, Citrus Growers Association and the AICGA.

Farmers cultivating parcels larger than 2.3 ha were members of two or more

organizations compared to one or less organization for farmers with smaller farms

(less than 2.3 ha). Younger farmers belonged to different organizations than older

farmers did. Farmers less than 40 years of age were members of the Coffee

Cooperative and JLA. Those over 40 years of age were more likely to be members

of JAS, Citrus Growers Association, and Peoples Cooperative Bank.


Cocoa Farmers Use of Rehabilitation Practices


The cocoa growing tradition has historical roots which extend back to the turn

of the century when Jamaica was the world's fourth largest producer (ICCO,

1992/93). Jamaica has extremely low production when compared to other cocoa-

growing countries. Cocoa rehabilitation practices are done to bring old or damaged

trees back into production. In the N. E. section of the Parish of St. Catherine, cocoa

is the most cultivated tree crop. It is grown by 77% of the farmers and covers

approximately 52% of the farm acreage (Grant, 1991). A recent survey in the area

by the IICA/MINAG Farming Systems Sub-project of HAP indicated that an equal

proportion of cocoa farmers use no cultural practices as those using from one to

three practices in their fields (Fig. 2-1)(Lewis, 1991). Researchers and extension

agents have been very perplexed by the number of farmers not using cultural









Practices Used Together


Three 29%







None 28%


Two 20%






3ne 23%


Use of a Single Practice


Prune


Fertilizer 9.0%
,, ,r Rat Control 9.0%

Use of Two Practices


Prune & Rat Control 50.0%


SFertilizer
& Rat Control


7.0%


I Prune & Fertilizer 43.0% |
Figure 2-1. Farmers' use of pruning, fertilizing and rat control either alone or in
combination to manage cocoa fields in St. Catherine, Jamaica. The data are from
240 farmers who responded to the IICA/MINAG Farming Systems Baseline Survey,
1989.








28

practices for cocoa management. The three management practices recommended by

the Cocoa Industry Board for increasing production are pruning, rodent control and

fertilizer application. Pruning (82%) was the most frequently used cultural practice

by farmers in managing their cocoa fields. In contrast, only 9% of farmers used

fertilizer as a single practice on cocoa. Farmers who used several practices in the

same field most often combined pruning with either rat control or fertilizer

application.


Pruning Practices


The CIB recommends pruning gormandizers (new shoots), dead and damaged

branches and rotted stumps from established trees twice annually in February or

March and August (Maitland, 1990)(Fig. 2-2a and 2-2b). Farmers said that they

pruned their cocoa trees 2.9 times annually which is more often the CIB

recommendation. There were no statistically significant differences with regard to

age, gender, or farm size in farmer's frequency of pruning (Todd Bockarie, 1993).

When pruning techniques were discussed with farmers during a Rapid Rural

Appraisal (RRA) (Todd Bockarie and Williams, 1991), they listed a variety of

reasons for using the practice which demonstrated their understanding of tree biology

including: 1) to increase the amount of sunlight in the field, 2) to increase pod

production, 3) to increase air circulation which would decrease the incidence of black

pod disease, 4) to extend pod production beyond the normal cropping season, and

5) to concentrate pod production on the trunk of the tree.











PRUNING YOUR COCOA
1. KEEP TREES LOW FOR EASY REAPING


2. CUT OFF GORMANDIZERS they use plant
food that the cocoa plants need. Gormandizers carry
leaves right round their stems. Shoots that have
leaves on two sides only are not gormandizers -
do not cut them off.














SGormandizer -
(leaves grow around stem and growth
Not a Gormandizer ends with a "crutch" or "jorquette"
a Fan Branch
1


Figure 2-2a. Identification of gormandizers and fan branches for pruning cocoa trees
(CIB, 1990).

















DO NOT PRUNE AWAY MORE THAN A
QUARTER OF THE TREE AT A TIME.


3. CUT OFF BRANCHES THAT ARE LOWER THAN
3 FEET. They get in the way and help make the field
damp which suits black pod disease Also when it rains
black pot spore will splash from the ground on tn low
pods.

4. CUT BACK BRANCHES THAT ARE TOO LONG
These will tear off when they have many pods.
Also cut back branches when trees get too heavy
on one side, failing to take the above step will cause the
tree to lean and ultimately fall over.

5. DON'T LEAVE STUMPS WHEN YOU CUT OFF
branches of gormandizers
Stumps die and rot and the rot spread from
the stumps to other branches of the trunk.



STUMP
LEFT CUT OFF ROT
CLEAN





6. When the tree trunk or a branch start rotting
cut a channel from the rot to let
out water when it rains









Figure 2-2b. Pruning practices oi rehabilitating and maintaining cocoa trees (CIB,
1990).








31
During the same discussions many farmers mentioned the need for overhead

shade management or "limbing" to balance the amount of sunlight/shade in the field.

As one farmer summarized:

If there is too much shade then the field stays too cool and the trees get

black pod. If the field is too open then the trees get too much sun and the

top of the trees burn. The champion farmer in this area has 100% sunlight

in his field, [however] the soil and the location of the farm make a difference

too for production.


Fertilizer Application


Fertilizer applications are used to raise per hectare cocoa production levels.

The CIB recommends the application of 12 oz. of 12:10:18 (N:P:K) per tree over

seven years of age twice a year along the tree's drip circle (St. Mary Cocoa

Rehabilitation Project, 1991)(Fig. 2-3). There was considerable debate between

farmers surveyed in the RRA on whether mature cocoa trees needed to be fertilized,

whether the practice was economical and under what conditions it should be used.

Most farmers interviewed had not used fertilizer on cocoa in the last several years.

In fact, the last time fertilizer was used in several cases was when it was distributed

free of cost following Hurricane Gilbert. Several farmers mentioned that fertilizer

applications were necessary to help seedlings grow faster, bear sooner and look

healthier in the bush. Many of the farmers who did not currently use fertilizer on

mature cocoa trees, but had tried it in the past, indicated that fertilizer did increase











FERTILIZING

Apply this way


place fertilizer around the
Drip circle
1st 3rd year
and also in old
fields where
Cocoa trees are
scattered.


Year 4 onwards broadcast in a field free of weeds,
but not near tree trunks.

N.B. On hillsides apply above Drip circle on topside
and inside Drip circle on bottom side

1st year Sulphate/Urea Optional- 4 oz. per plant per year

2nd 6th year 12:10:18 or 16:9:18- 8 oz. per plant twice per year
(during the rainy season)

7th year onwards 12 oz.-per plant twice per year










Figure 2-3. Fertilizer application recommendations for cocoa seedlings and trees
(CIB, 1990).








33
both flower and pod production. The majority of farmers said that fertilizer was

needed for cocoa, however one farmer stated:

you have to buy it on your own so you only use it on crops which will produce

money. The price of cocoa can't buy half a bag of fertilizer.

Thus, high initial cost and insufficient return to money invested were the main

reasons why fertilizer was not used on cocoa by these farmers. The few farmers who

indicated that fertilizer was unnecessary felt that pruning and weeding were sufficient

for managing cocoa effectively or that the soil was currently fertile enough.


Rodent Pest Control


Current CIB recommendations suggest 120 gm of anticoagulant rodenticide

per bait station with one bait station for every 10 to 30 trees depending on the

density of the cocoa trees (8 to 10 kg of rodenticide per ha of cocoa) (CIB,

1990)(Fig. 2-4). During the RRA, many farmers said that they evaluated rat bait

effectiveness on whether they saw or smelled dead rats in the field (Todd Bockarie

and Williams, 1991). Others judged effectiveness based on pod production

differences between treated and untreated areas in their fields. Many farmers felt

that rat blocks were not as effective as the old method of applying a poisonous gel

to a ripe banana. Several farmers mentioned having difficulty maintaining a constant

supply of rat bait. Farmers observed that rat blocks lose their effectiveness and must

be replaced throughout the cropping season. One farmer also noted that "sometimes

you can get free rat blocks and sometimes you have to buy them".






























Baiting rats gives you back your money quicker than another,
cultural practice. Pods saved from rats are sold soon after.
Baiting Station 1 !
Set rat bait in trees at (baiting stations) at rate of
7 91bs. acre of 435 (10' x 10' spacing) to 547 trees
(10' x 8' spacing) k i I


Each baiting station should -
- be approximately 5 feet from the
- contain 0.25 lb. of bait


be checked every 3 days and bait replaced
when necessary.
A Baiting Station is a bamboo joint pierced at both ends, to allow
the bait to be inserted. This protects the bait from rain and is a com-
fortable place for the rats to hide and eat the bait. There should be
one station every 15-20 trees (cocoa)


Figure 2-4. Directions for construction of baiting stations and rodenticide
recommendations for cocoa trees (CIB, 1990).










Study Objectives


The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of attending a single field

training day on the knowledge, attitudes and practices of cocoa farmers participating

in the St. Mary Cocoa Rehabilitation sub-project. Changes in farmers' knowledge

and application of three cocoa cultural practices were used to evaluate whether group

on-farm demonstrations were an effective agroforestry extension strategy for targeting

farmers in remote rural areas.


Methods


A quasi-experimental pretest/posttest design was used to assess the changes

in attitudes and learning by farmers for pruning, fertilizer application and rodent

control in Berryhill, Jamaica following a one day group training with on-farm

demonstrations on April 8, 1992 (Campbell and Stanley, 1987). Using records

supplied by the Cocoa Industry Board and the St. Mary Cocoa Rehabilitation Sub-

project of the Hillside Agriculture Project, all farmers producing more than five

boxes of wet cocoa in the 1987/88 cropping year were located and pretested the

week prior to the field day. Extension personnel used the 1987/88 season as a

guideline for selecting participating farmers because many cocoa fields had not yet

fully recovered from the devastating effects of Hurricane Gilbert (September 1988).

Approximately 53% of the cocoa producers in the area produced more than five

boxes (Fig. 2-5).










Study Objectives


The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of attending a single field

training day on the knowledge, attitudes and practices of cocoa farmers participating

in the St. Mary Cocoa Rehabilitation sub-project. Changes in farmers' knowledge

and application of three cocoa cultural practices were used to evaluate whether group

on-farm demonstrations were an effective agroforestry extension strategy for targeting

farmers in remote rural areas.


Methods


A quasi-experimental pretest/posttest design was used to assess the changes

in attitudes and learning by farmers for pruning, fertilizer application and rodent

control in Berryhill, Jamaica following a one day group training with on-farm

demonstrations on April 8, 1992 (Campbell and Stanley, 1987). Using records

supplied by the Cocoa Industry Board and the St. Mary Cocoa Rehabilitation Sub-

project of the Hillside Agriculture Project, all farmers producing more than five

boxes of wet cocoa in the 1987/88 cropping year were located and pretested the

week prior to the field day. Extension personnel used the 1987/88 season as a

guideline for selecting participating farmers because many cocoa fields had not yet

fully recovered from the devastating effects of Hurricane Gilbert (September 1988).

Approximately 53% of the cocoa producers in the area produced more than five

boxes (Fig. 2-5).









100

90 -------------------------------------------------

80 ------------------------

70 ------------------------------------------------

60 --------------------

o 50 --

,. 40 - - - - - - - - - -

Z 30 -

20 ------------------------------------

10 q -M OM A ---pAM-------
10 i


< 1 1-4 5-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 71-75
Total Annual Production (boxes of wet cocoa)
Figure 2-5. Frequency distribution of cocoa production for Berryhill, St. Catherine in 1987/88.








37

One month prior to the training, the researcher and a team of three

enumerators located and pretested 114 cocoa farmers which was 87% of those listed

as producing five or more boxes of cocoa in 1987/88. Each farmer demonstrated on

cocoa trees in the field his or her application method for three cocoa cultural

practices: 1) pruning, 2) fertilizer and 3) rat control. Notes were made as to whether

the farmer was actually implementing the practice described. Questions on attitudes

towards the price of cocoa and problems in farming were also asked. The survey

questions are in the Appendix. Following the pretest each farmer was personally

invited to attend the upcoming field training day. Posters were also placed in the

town square, at a local bar which was a central meeting place, and at the school.

The researcher and project extension agents conducted the field training day

on a cocoa farm located near the central cocoa collection area for Berryhill. The

training day demonstration started at 10 a.m. with a one hour introduction to cocoa

cultural practices and the objectives of the sub-project towards increasing cocoa yield

in the area. A general question-and-answer session followed. The 67 farmers in

attendance were then divided into three smaller training groups for the three field

demonstrations on: 1) pruning practices for rehabilitating mature and hurricane-

damaged trees, control of black pod disease and identification and removal of

gormandizers to increase production ; 2) fertilizer use and application in which

samples of both 12:10:18 fertilizer for mature trees and sulphate of ammonia

fertilizer for seedlings was applied to live trees; and 3) rat control where bait stations

were made from locally-available bamboo, tied to the tree's canopy and set with









38
paraffin blocks of the anticoagulant, chlorophacinone. Each group of 20 or more

farmers visited all three field demonstrations. After farmers had tried each practice

and asked questions following the demonstration, the groups rotated to the next

demonstration area until all three stations were completed. Farmers spent between

30 to 50 minutes at each demonstration site. Lunch was provided following the field

demonstrations. The training day ended at 3 p.m. with a general question-and-

answer session for farmers. Two pound packages of the CIB recommended rat block

were distributed to 50 farmers at the close of the training day. Not all farmers

participating received rat block because two cases were stolen from the extension

agent's truck during the field demonstrations. Twenty-five farmers received 12 bags

of 12:10:18 fertilizer, 6 bags of sulphate of ammonia and 8 two-pound packages of

the CIB recommended rat block on credit through the St. Mary Cocoa Rehabilitation

Project during the four months following the field day.

The posttest was administered during the five day period immediately

following the field training day. All farmers who attended the field training day were

retested in their fields on their methods for applying fertilizer, rat control and

pruning. Farmers who did not attend the training day were asked why they did not

come and whether they had either heard or been shown the practices by another

farmer. An additional posttest interview to monitor the application of the three

practices by farmers was completed four months after the training at the start of the


next cocoa harvesting season.











Statistical Analysis


Farmers were asked to demonstrate key features of CIB recommendations for

each practice as listed in Table 2-4. Knowledge scores were computed for the pre

and posttest for each farmer and analyzed using t-tests. Knowledge score data were

disaggregated by age, gender, and production before and after Hurricane Gilbert for

each technology. Farmers older than 40 years of age were compared to those

younger than 40 years based on the results of earlier surveys in the area. Differences

between large cocoa producers (> ten boxes per year) and small cocoa producers (<

ten boxes) were analyzed using t-tests for numeric variables and chi2 tests for

categorical data. Innovations to the technology, actual practice in the field and

exchange of information between farmers were recorded qualitatively.


Table 2-4. The key features of each cultural practice which farmers demonstrated their knowledge of
using cocoa trees in their fields.

PRUNING APPLICATION OF APPLICATION OF RODENT
N:P:K FERTILIZER SULPHATE OF CONTROL
AMMONIA
FERTILIZER
Sharp knife Name type Name type Bamboo bait
station
Cut bottom-up How to apply How to apply Why use bait
station
Smooth cut How much to apply How much to apply Apply on tree
Cut flush to trunk How often How often How often to refill
Recognize Correct season to Correct season to Time needed for
gormandizer apply for cocoa apply for cocoa rats to get lethal
dose
When to prune
When and how to cut
gormandizers










Results


Pretest Results


A total of 131 farmers supplied more than five boxes of wet cocoa in 1987/88

to CIB. Approximately 8% of these farmers had died and 5% were not available for

interviews, thus 112 cocoa farmers were pretested. All farmers had at least a primary

school education and were literate. The age of the farmers surveyed ranged from 18

to 89 years. Male farmers composed the majority of the sample (71%) and the mean

age was 55 years. Female farmers tended to be slightly older with a mean age of 60

years. As shown in Fig. 2-6, there were significant differences in cocoa production

between male and female farmers from 1987 through 1991. Production in 1987 just

prior to Hurricane Gilbert ranged from 0.1 to 72.3 boxes of wet cocoa with a mean

of 10.5 boxes per farmer. Recovery from the disaster is more apparent for male

farmers because their average production reached 9.9 boxes by 1991. In contrast,

female farmers' production remained depressed at 5.1 boxes (p = 0.001). There was

no difference in production by age, nor did younger farmers tend to be of only one

gender. Fifty-eight percent of farmers were dissatisfied with their current level of

cocoa production and 10% had either stopped supplying cocoa or switched to

manufacturing and marketing their own chocolate. Changes that farmers felt were

needed are listed in Table 2-5. Knowledge of the current price for a box of cocoa

did not vary by age or gender. However, large cocoa producers were more likely to

know the current price per box than smaller producers (p = 0.004).










Results


Pretest Results


A total of 131 farmers supplied more than five boxes of wet cocoa in 1987/88

to CIB. Approximately 8% of these farmers had died and 5% were not available for

interviews, thus 112 cocoa farmers were pretested. All farmers had at least a primary

school education and were literate. The age of the farmers surveyed ranged from 18

to 89 years. Male farmers composed the majority of the sample (71%) and the mean

age was 55 years. Female farmers tended to be slightly older with a mean age of 60

years. As shown in Fig. 2-6, there were significant differences in cocoa production

between male and female farmers from 1987 through 1991. Production in 1987 just

prior to Hurricane Gilbert ranged from 0.1 to 72.3 boxes of wet cocoa with a mean

of 10.5 boxes per farmer. Recovery from the disaster is more apparent for male

farmers because their average production reached 9.9 boxes by 1991. In contrast,

female farmers' production remained depressed at 5.1 boxes (p = 0.001). There was

no difference in production by age, nor did younger farmers tend to be of only one

gender. Fifty-eight percent of farmers were dissatisfied with their current level of

cocoa production and 10% had either stopped supplying cocoa or switched to

manufacturing and marketing their own chocolate. Changes that farmers felt were

needed are listed in Table 2-5. Knowledge of the current price for a box of cocoa

did not vary by age or gender. However, large cocoa producers were more likely to

know the current price per box than smaller producers (p = 0.004).












14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0


Male Producers


5 All Producers

---- -- -- ----
.-- .... .... --.


- -- - - -

-~- ---------

---------
- -- -- I r l r d




--













---


1987 1988 1989


Female Producers
------------ ---

----------------


- - - -- -
- -- -- -- -



- -- -



















) 1991


Annual Cocoa Production

Figure 2-6. Gender differences in cocoa production for farmers in Berryhill. P-values are given as = 0.01
and *** = 0.0001.


*X

-- 00-
-- 00-
-- ---








42
Table 2-5. How farmers would like to change their cocoa management practices in
Berryhill, Jamaica.
CHANGES IN COCOA FREQUENCY PERCENT
MANAGEMENT
No change 49 23
Plant new trees 34 16
Weed and prune trees 20 9
Weed regularly 20 9
Fertilize only 19 9
Better price for cocoa 17 8
Kill rats 16 8
Weed, prune and fertilize 15 7
Weed and fertilize 13 6
Prune only 6 3
Cut shade trees 2 > 1
More instruction 1 > 1
TOTALS: 212 100


Only 46% of the farmers said that they had ever participated in a field

training day. The training was delivered by either project personnel or government

extension agents for 90% of those that had participated. The last field training day

in the area that farmers reported attending was on average eight years ago with times

ranging from one to forty years. The amount of time that had elapsed since a farmer

either attended or heard about a field training day did not vary by gender or cocoa

production. However, younger farmers (<40 years) reported having attended some

type of field training day in the past year, whereas older farmers( >40 years) had not








43
attended for five or more years (p = 0.001). Farmers thought that past field days

were good for getting information or new skills (60%), motivating (12%) and a

means of receiving either money or inputs (4%) or they were very dissatisfied (24%)

because they did not receive benefits or inputs which they had been promised.

Ninety-four percent felt that they would go to the field training day. Reasons given

by farmers for attending a training day included that they wanted to try new farming

skills (64%), get information (16%), farming was their livelihood (14%) or receive

inputs (6%).

Rehabilitative pruning. Eighty-three percent of the farmers reported that they

pruned their cocoa trees, but only 36.6% could identify a gormandizer in the field

and 34% knew to make a flush cut to prevent rot and disease. Thirty-seven percent

of farmers said that it had been five or more years since they had last pruned their

trees. There was no age difference in either the time elapsed since the last pruning

or farmers' general knowledge about how to prune. However, larger cocoa producers

(> 10 boxes) knew more about pruning practices and also pruned their trees more

recently (within 1.8 years) then smaller producers (p = 0.006), who had not pruned

in 2.8 years (p = 0.05). Women knew less about pruning than men on the pretest

(p = 0.0001). The three most common reasons given for pruning were that the trees

1) produced more pods (50%), 2) grew faster (15%) and 3) needed shade and air

flow controlled (13%). To determine if pruning is effective, farmers looked for more

pods on the trunk (62%), increased growth of leaves (13%) and increased overall

production (11%).








44

Fertilizer application. Far fewer farmers (only 10%) indicated that they used

fertilizer compared to pruning for cocoa management. Seventeen percent of farmers

had tried fertilizer on cocoa and 37% had seen someone else apply it. There was no

difference in the last time fertilizer was applied by age, gender or cocoa production.

However, older farmers were less likely to have used fertilizer than younger farmers

(p = 0.06). General knowledge about both types of fertilizer varied by gender with

women knowing less on the pretest than men (p = 0.001). More men (55%) than

women (11%) had seen someone else using fertilizer (p = 0.01). Half of the twenty-

nine farmers who had ever tried fertilizer on cocoa got it free. Given the small

number of farmers who use fertilizer on cocoa, it is not surprising that there were no

differences in estimates for costs of a bag of fertilizer by age, gender or cocoa

production. None of the farmers could list the ratio of N:P:K recommended for

fertilizing cocoa and 7% knew how to apply it along the drip circle (see Fig. 2-3).

In contrast, 8% of farmers could correctly label the sulphate of ammonia fertilizer

and 11% had used it on coffee, coconut, bananas, pimento, sugarcane and vegetables.

Most farmers (91%) could not give a reason why fertilizer should be used on cocoa.

The main reasons given for not fertilizing were that it was: 1) too expensive (21%),

2) not available (17%) and 3) not needed because the land was good enough without

it (9%). Fifty-three percent of farmers could not list any criteria to judge whether

fertilizer was effective for cocoa trees. Evaluation criteria listed included increased

production, trees grow faster, leaf color becomes greener, and more flowers.








45
Rodent control. An overwhelming majority of farmers (95%) reported to have

problems with rat damage in their cocoa fields. However, 81% had not seen or

heard of using pieces of bamboo as a baiting station; most farmers tied the

rodenticide to the tree (57%) or put it in a sardine can (16%). From 1987 to 1991,

larger cocoa producers consistently knew more about use of rodenticides than smaller

producers (p = 0.006). Yet, only 20% of the farmers knew that currently available

rodenticides were multiple-dose and slow-acting. Eighty-four percent of farmers had

tried some type of rodent control including commercial rodenticides (65%), increased

weeding and cleaning of the field (8%), traps (5%), earlier pod harvesting (3%), cats

(2%), and application of roseapple and cornmeal (1%). There was no difference in

the last time rat bait was set by age, gender or cocoa production. To judge the

effectiveness of rodent control, 43% of farmers said they needed to see or smell dead

rats in the field, 25% looked for decreased pod damage, 12% waited to see if the

bait was eaten and 20% said they currently were not satisfied with any method. Of

the farmers using rodenticides, 73% had purchased it on their own which is a much

higher percentage than purchased fertilizer (Table 2-6). Larger cocoa farmers

estimated the cost for rodent control to average J$ 5.50 in 1991, whereas smaller

producers estimated the cost to be J$ 1.50 (p = 0.006). This trend in larger farmers

estimating a higher cost for rodent control was consistent from 1987 through 1991.










Table 2-6. Sources for acquiring rodenticides for farmers in Berryhill, Jamaica.

SOURCE FREQUENCY PERCENT
Government 32 31
Farmstore 18 17
Local market 17 17
Friend 12 11
None 25 24
TOTALS: 104 100


Five Day Posttest Results

Forty-seven percent of the pretested farmers attended the field training day.

Far fewer men than women attended (only 6%)(p = 0.001). Of those farmers who

participated, 96% felt it was a good learning experience with only 8% of the farmers

remarking that they did not learn anything new. There was no gender difference in

whether farmers felt that they had learned from the experience or if they discussed

it with others afterwards. Attendance did not vary by age or previous history of

participation in extension service activities. However, a trend of younger farmers

(mean age 54) attending compared to those who did not come (mean age 59 years)

was evident (p = 0.08). Although, all farmers in the area who produced more than

five boxes of cocoa were personally invited to attend the field demonstration, there

was a greater number of farmers present who currently produced more than 10 boxes

of cocoa (p = 0.04). Neither past cocoa production nor level of satisfaction with

current production was a significant factor in attendance.








47
One individual said he would not go to any future field days. All the other

participants remarked that they would go to another training because learning is a

motivating force, they get information about current trends in agriculture and they

gain more experience. Fifteen different topics were suggested for future training

days. The three most popular ideas were methods for planting coconuts (25%), weed

control (13%) and coffee pruning (11%). Cocoa, yams and coffee were the three

most important crops to farmers in the area. Several farmers clarified why these

particular crops were mentioned. Cocoa was a reliable money producer regardless

of how bad the times were. Yams produced food and could be sold at the market

and coffee provided the most money for them. Sixty-three percent of the farmers

relied on off-farm income including paid employment such as mason, butcher,

carpenter or tailor; were entrepreneurs marketing sand, domestic chocolate, lumber

or marijuana; or went regularly to the United States or Canada to do agricultural

work. The most pressing problems for farmers in Berryhill included the cost of

hiring labor (46%) and too much land to satisfactorily manage alone (27%). Areas

where they asserted that help from the extension service would be useful were

assistance in solving the labor problem (39%) and access to tools and fertilizer

(33%).

Farmers who participated in the field demonstration knew more on the pretest

about CIB recommendations for pruning and fertilizer application, than those who

did not attend (p = 0.02). There was no difference in trying or seeing others apply

fertilizers between those who did and did not attend. Previous knowledge about








48

rodent control did not vary between those who did and did not attend. More farmers

who attended the field day already knew the current price of a box of cocoa (J$ 70),

then those who did not attend (p = 0.02). In addition, farmers who attended felt

that a good price for a box of cocoa should be at least J$ 236, whereas those who did

not attend felt that J$ 180 was sufficient (p = 0.004). Reasons given for increasing

the price included the difficulty in managing cocoa on hillsides, current cost of farm

labor and the rising cost of chocolate products in the stores.

Thirty-five percent of the farmers who said at the pretest that they were

interested in attending the field day did not do so (p = 0.001). The majority of

farmers (91%) who did not go to the training were asked their reasons for not being

present. These included 1) busy working (31%), 2) illness (31%), 3) part-time

residents in the area (16%), 4) sent spouse or relative as a substitute (10%), 5)

travelled out of the area (6%) and 6) angry or dissatisfied with extension activities

(5%). When asked what they did instead, they remarked that they needed to stay

at home because they were sick or to take care of a sick relative or animal (41%),

travelled to court, market or work (30%), stayed at home to do domestic or

agricultural work (18%) or sold nutmeg or lumber (11%). However, 47% of the

farmers declared that they had heard about what happened at the field

demonstration and 19% said that they had been shown how to do the different

cultural practices. Women were less likely to hear about what happened at the

demonstration than men (p = 0.06). Larger producers (> 10 boxes) who did not

attend (18%) were also less likely to hear about the practices demonstrated than








49

small producers (29%)(p = 0.04). There was no difference in hearing about the

training by age.

Rehabilitative pruning. Forty-five percent of the farmers who participated in

the field day listed pruning practices as the area where they felt they had learned the

most. Following the training, 35% of the farmers were able to demonstrate all the

recommended pruning practices. Only 9% disagreed with what they had been shown.

There was no difference by gender, age or cocoa production for farmers predicting

that they would prune following the recommendations. Farmers who attended the

field training learned significantly more about pruning than they previously knew

(Table 2-7). Even though farmer knowledge about pruning was already high prior

to training, they started to lose the new information within four months afterwards.

The mean score of 5.98 is in the 85th percentile on a scale of seven possible points

and the posttest score of 5.26 is in the 75th percentile.


Table 2-7. Mean difference in knowledge scores on cocoa management practices
between the pre and posttests for farmers who attended the field day demonstrations
in Berryhill, St. Catherine.

Practice Pretest Five Mean P-value Four Mean P-value
Day Change Month Change
Posttest Posttest
Prune 3.99 5.98 + 1.99 p= 0.0001 5.26 -0.72 p= 0.001
12:10:18
Fertilizer 1.38 2.65 +1.27 p = 0.0001 2.69 +0.04 p = 0.815
Sulphate of
Ammonia 0.72 2.86 +2.14 p= 0.0001 2.77 -0.09 p= 0.621
Rodent
Control 1.53 4.18 +2.65 p= 0.0001 3.51 -0.67 p= 0.006








50

Fertilizer application. Fertilizer application rates for cocoa were lower than

either pruning or rodent control prior to and after the training day. Knowledge

about fertilizer, particularly for sulphate of ammonia, increased significantly from the

pretest to the five day posttest and was retained for four months (Table 2-7).

However, only 12% of the farmers who participated felt that they had learned the

most about fertilizer application. Ten percent of the farmers remarked that they

would not apply fertilizer using the method demonstrated and few of the participating

farmers were able to recall the recommendations for 12:10:18 (4%) or sulphate of

ammonia (7%). There was no difference by gender, age or cocoa production for

farmers predicting that they would fertilize following the recommendations.

Rodent control. Eighteen percent of the farmers felt they had learned

something new about rodent control after the training day and 30% were able to

correctly demonstrate it five days later. Rodent control had the highest significant

increase in learning between the pre and posttest, yet the knowledge began to decay

within four months of the training (Table 2-7). Ten percent were already using the

stations in their fields within five days of the training. One farmer asserted that he

would not use the rodent control method shown. There was no difference by gender,

age or cocoa production for farmers predicting that they would follow the

recommendations for rodent control.

During the field day and immediately after, many farmers suggested

alternative rat baits due to the high cost and limited availability of the commercial

rat blocks. Seventy-three percent of the farmers had heard about the indigenous








51

method of preparing a rodenticide from roseapple root (Syzygium jambos (L.) Alston)

mixed with cornmeal. There was a trend towards older farmers (53%) being more

likely to have heard about roseapple as a rodenticide than younger farmers (21%)(p

= 0.10). There was no difference in hearing about the rodenticidal properties of

roseapple by gender or cocoa production.


Four Month Posttest Results


Rehabilitative pruning. Thirty-four percent of the farmers surveyed pruned

their cocoa trees in the months following the training day. Twenty-six percent of the

farmers who attended the training pruned their cocoa compared to 8% of those who

had not attended (p = 0.01). Several farmers (23%) adapted the method to suit

their needs as shown in Table 2-8. Many farmers (28%) were able to correctly

demonstrate all CIB recommendations for pruning cocoa. There were significant

increases in knowledge scores between the pretest and four month posttest for

farmers who attended the field day compared to those who did not attend (p =

0.0001)(Fig. 2-7). Women knew less than men on both the pretest and the four

month posttest (Fig. 2-8). Knowledge scores did not substantially increase or

decrease for men from the pretest to the four month posttest. In contrast, knowledge

scores for women decreased over time (p = 0.05). Older farmers did not learn

anything new about pruning, whereas younger farmers scores increased from 1.83 on

the pretest to 3.77 on the posttest (p = 0.004)(Fig. 2-9). There was no substantial








52
Table 2-8. Farmer adaptations of CIB pruning practices in Berryhill, St. Catherine.

FARMER ADAPTATION OF PRUNING FREQUENCY PERCENT
TECHNIQUES
Tried on a few trees near the house 11 59
Pruned only that section of the field where 3 16
seed/seedlings were being underplanted
Totally cut back tree to promote growth of 2 10
gormandizers
Limited rehabilitative pruning because cocoa 1 5
field was leased
Pruned one tree per field visit because of 1 5
limited labor.
Selected only the best bearing trees to prune 1 5
in the field
TOTALS: 19 100


increase in knowledge scores for either small or large producers from the pretest to

the posttest. However, larger producers knew significantly more about pruning prior

to the field day than smaller producers and this jump in knowledge was maintained

through the four month posttest (p = 0.02)(Fig. 2-10).

Fertilizer application. In the four months after the training day, between 23%

and 29% of the farmers surveyed received the two types of fertilizer either directly

from the St. Mary Cocoa Rehabilitation Project, purchased it on their own or were

given some by a friend or relative. There was no difference in obtaining fertilizers

by age, gender or cocoa production. Of the farmers who attended the training day,

20% received 12:10:18 fertilizer and 17% received sulphate of ammonia compared

to 8% and 7% respectively of those who did not attend (p = 0.01). Fewer than 3%











I Attended Training 0 Did Not Attend
----------------- -- -


*I


6


5


4


S3


2


1


0


Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
Prune 12:10:18 Sulphate Rodent Control
Cocoa Management Practices
Figure 2-7. Differences in knowledge scores by attendance at training for the pretest and four month posttest.
P-values are given as *=0.01 and ***=0.0001.


~F~ic&













6 - - - - - - - - -




1 4 5 - -- - - - - - - - - - - -
85



U


U)



2
2 .. .-.-.- . A -- - -- - - - -



S-- i ic t--- -




0
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
Prune 12:10:18 Sulphate Rodent Control
Cocoa Management Practices
Figure 2-8. Gender differences in knowledge scores for the prestest compared tothe four month posttest.
P-values fare given as ***=0.0001.










7


6



S5


' 4


3


W 2


1


0


[ Less than 40 years More than 40 years



-- ----- -------- ------ -- -- -








S- ----- -- -- ----


- - -----





Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
Prune 12:10:18 Sulphate Rodent Control
Cocoa Management Practices
Figure 2-9. Differences in knowledge scores by age for the pretest compared to the four month posttest.
P-values are given as *=0.01.






* Less than 10 boxes 0 More than 10 boxes


Pretest
Prun


Posttest Pretest Posttest


e


Figure 2-10. Differences in


Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest


12:10:18 Sulphate Rodent Control
Cocoa Management Practices
knowledge scores by cocoa production for the pretest compared to the posttest.


P-values are given as *=0.01 and **=0.001.


6
5
4
3
2

0


I~


** \
\w \
--
- - - --^ B ^


I








57

of the farmers could demonstrate all the CIB recommendations for cocoa after four

months. There were substantial increases in knowledge from the pretest to the four

month posttest by attendance at the training (p = 0.0001)(Fig. 2-7), gender (p =

0.0001)(Fig. 2-8) and cocoa production (p = 0.006)(Fig. 2-10). Men knew

significantly more about fertilizer application then women and maintained the higher

score (p = 0.0001). Both large and small producers learned significantly more about

fertilizers from the training (p = 0.005), but the difference in knowledge scores

between large and small producers was not significant.

Few farmers actually tried fertilizing cocoa with 12:10:18 (9%), but 28% of the

farmers surveyed (N = 22/131) used it in a novel way as shown in Table 2-9.


Table 2-9. Farmer use of 12:10:18 fertilizer in Berryhill, St. Catherine.
FERTILIZER USE FREQUENCY PERCENT
Applied to other crops 14 63.6
Gave to a friend or relative 4 18.4
Sold to generate cash 1 4.5
Tried at house on small area of cocoa 1 4.5
Applied less than half the recommended 1 4.5
amount
Applied twice the recommended amount at 1 4.5
both the drip circle and base of trunk
TOTALS: 22 100.0


Farmers who attended the training day were more likely to experiment with 12:10:18

fertilizer (20%) than those who did not attend (5%)(p = 0.01). There was a trend








58

for older farmers (>40 years)(15%) to innovate with 12:10:18 fertilizer compared to

younger farmers (9%)(p = 0.08). There was no difference in trying or innovating

with 12:10:18 fertilizer by gender or cocoa production. The main crops which

farmers applied 12:10:18 fertilizer to included yams (20%), plantains (18%), coconuts

(15%), and coffee (10%). Eight or less percent of the farmers also applied fertilizer

to bananas, sugarcane, vegetables, marijuana or red peas.

A slightly higher percent of farmers (6.8%) could correctly show CIB

recommendations for applying sulphate of ammonia to cocoa seedlings. Only five

farmers who had attended the training tried sulphate of ammonia on cocoa (p =

0.05). Fifteen percent of the farmers surveyed applied it in an innovative way that

differed from the CIB recommendations. Of the farmers who participated in the

training 13% were innovative compared to 2% of those who did not attend (p =

0.04). Fifty percent of the farmers applying sulphate of ammonia used it on other

crops such as sugarcane and coconuts, 36% gave it to a friend and 14% sold it. There

was no difference in trying or innovating with sulphate of ammonia by age, gender

or cocoa production.

Rodent Control. Fifty-nine percent of the farmers surveyed acquired rat bait

either directly from the St. Mary Cocoa Rehabilitation Project, purchased it

themselves or got from a friend or relative. Of those who participated in the

training, 42% received rat block compared to 16% of those who did not attend (p

= 0.0001). There was a trend in which women were less likely to get rat bait than

men (p = 0.07). There was no difference in obtaining rat block by age or cocoa








59

production. Many farmers (56%) tried rodent control on cocoa and 16% were able

to correctly demonstrate it four months after the training. There were substantial

increases in knowledge from the training (p = 0.0006)(Fig. 2-7), by gender (p =

0.0001)(Fig. 2-8), and cocoa production (p = 0.08)(Fig. 2-10). There were no

differences in knowledge scores between men and women on the pretest. Men

learned more from the training than women did (0.0001). Both large and small

producers' knowledge scores about rodent control increased from the pretest to the

posttest (p = 0.01). There were significant differences in pretest scores with larger

producers having higher scores. The difference in knowledge scores between large

and small producers was not significant on the posttest.

The farmers who attended the training (44%) were more likely to use rat bait

than those who had not attended (12%)(p = 0.0001). Fifty-two farmers found

fourteen creative ways to use rat block (Table 2-10). Farmers who went to the

training (45%) were more likely to be innovators with rat block than those who did

not go (14%)(p = 0.0001). There was no difference in trying or innovating with

rodent control methods by age, gender or cocoa production.


Discussion


Characteristics of the Technologies

Between the three technologies tested, there were large differences between

the degree of non-adoption by farmers. Labor and cost were critical factors for

farmers in evaluating the technologies. For pruning, farmers had a substantial








59

production. Many farmers (56%) tried rodent control on cocoa and 16% were able

to correctly demonstrate it four months after the training. There were substantial

increases in knowledge from the training (p = 0.0006)(Fig. 2-7), by gender (p =

0.0001)(Fig. 2-8), and cocoa production (p = 0.08)(Fig. 2-10). There were no

differences in knowledge scores between men and women on the pretest. Men

learned more from the training than women did (0.0001). Both large and small

producers' knowledge scores about rodent control increased from the pretest to the

posttest (p = 0.01). There were significant differences in pretest scores with larger

producers having higher scores. The difference in knowledge scores between large

and small producers was not significant on the posttest.

The farmers who attended the training (44%) were more likely to use rat bait

than those who had not attended (12%)(p = 0.0001). Fifty-two farmers found

fourteen creative ways to use rat block (Table 2-10). Farmers who went to the

training (45%) were more likely to be innovators with rat block than those who did

not go (14%)(p = 0.0001). There was no difference in trying or innovating with

rodent control methods by age, gender or cocoa production.


Discussion


Characteristics of the Technologies

Between the three technologies tested, there were large differences between

the degree of non-adoption by farmers. Labor and cost were critical factors for

farmers in evaluating the technologies. For pruning, farmers had a substantial










Table 2-10. Farmer use of chlorophacinone rat blocks in Berryhill, St. Catherine.

RAT BLOCK USE FREQUENCY PERCENT
Applied inside ceiling of house 31 34.0
Gave to a friend or relative 22 24.0
Put more blocks in bamboo bait
station to save labor on checking and. 9 10.0
refilling
Sold rat blocks to generate cash 8 9.0
Applied less than half the
recommended amount 4 4.3
Applied in other places such as
chicken coops, crop storage or on 3 3.3
coconuts
Applied only to areas with severe 2 2.2
damage
Tied rat block inside bamboo so that
rats could not remove from station 2 2.2
Placed on ground in a clear spot or
inside of a banana 2 2.2
Used other method to keep in tree
such as tied directly or placed in 2 2.2
sardine tin
Experimented with chlorophacinone
and brodifacoum baits to see which 2 2.2
was better
Used with other method such as traps
or roseapple and cornmeal 2 2.2
Applied to furthest cocoa field 1 1.1
Showed someone else and helped
them make and set bamboo bait 1 1.1
stations
TOTALS: 91 100.0








61

amount of knowledge already, but did not implement the practice as frequently as

was recommended by the CIB. An earlier study indicated that farmers actually

reported pruning more often than was recommended by the CIB, however it is clear

that what they called pruning was not the recommended practice. Access to the key

requirement of the technology, labor, was a problem. They were willing to learn

more about it and did so. There was very limited knowledge of fertilizer application

methods for cocoa in the area. Yet, even when farmers learned more about it from

the training and had it stored at their homes, very few used it on cocoa. They were

not convinced of the relative advantages for cocoa. In contrast, many farmers were

aware of rat damage to their fields, had evaluated the relative performance of a

number of different rodent control methods, had rejected the CIB recommendations

as unsatisfactory and when given new information and a two pound bag of

chlorophacinone blocks were very innovative in testing its effectiveness.

Rehabilitative pruning. Andreae (1980) lists a range of 37 to 250 man

hours/ha/yr for maintaining cocoa depending on the intensity of cultivation. Wood

and Lass (1985) estimated the amount of labor required to rehabilitate and maintain

cocoa using a number of different case studies in Togo, Ivory Coast, Malaysia and

Trinidad. Smallholders farming from 1 to 2 ha. of intercropped cocoa described by

Lass as a "low input and low output system" invested between five to seven hours in

pruning each year in Togo. Full rehabilitative pruning and weeding required 67 man

hours each year for the first year and 41 man hours in subsequent years in the Ivory

Coast. In the 1979 Malaysian case study, it was estimated that a single worker could








62
maintain 2.75 ha. of cocoa compared to 3.25 ha. of rubber or 4.75 ha. of oil palms.

In contrast, a large estate in Trinidad minimized labor usage by mechanizing and

used only five man hours for maintenance pruning in 1983. Rehabilitation of trees

damaged by a hurricane requires a heavy investment in labor, yet farmers in the area

clearly listed labor and not being able to manage the land that they currently have

as the next most pressing problems after cash flow. In addition, sixty-three percent

of the farmers relied upon off-farm income to sustain them creating a conflict in

where to invest their labor. Farmers stated that the price of cocoa should be

increased because it currently did not reflect the labor investment required in

managing it. Therefore, it is not surprising that even when farmers had the

knowledge they did not implement the practice as prescribed. The disincentives for

pruning outweighed the incentives for most farmers in the study.

The four month posttest survey was conducted between harvesting seasons

which is the optimal time for pruning cocoa (Wood and Lass, 1985; Maitland, 1990).

Farmers readily reported that they did prune (83% in the pretest) or would prune

(95% in the five day posttest after the training), yet 35% of the farmers pruned cocoa

following the training day compared to 56% who applied rodent control. Knowledge

scores did change partly because as one farmer put it, "what I used to think of as

pruning isn't what they showed there". Sixty-six percent of the farmer innovations

reduced the labor input by being extremely selective on how many trees were pruned

(e.g. best bearing, only one per visit, small area near the house). Women in

particular had difficulty implementing pruning practices due to labor constraints. As








63

46 year old Ms. M. said, "I need to do something that I can manage by myself such

as chickens." Her two sons, ages 17 and 26, refused to prune her trees, although they

were willing to help build and set out a bamboo bait station.

Fertilizer. Low cocoa price is a constraint to adoption of more cost intensive

technologies in other cocoa producing countries. Laryea (1984) found that

smallholder cocoa farmers in West Africa, judge whether the new technique is within

their financial capacity and if the cost outweighs the potential benefit. In the present

study, farmers were less likely to try the two types of fertilizers on cocoa even when

they had the knowledge to do so and had sixteen bags of fertilizer. They innovated

by applying both fertilizers to other crops (yams, plantains, coconuts and coffee) that

they felt had a known, immediate cash return for the investment. As was stated

earlier, "the price of cocoa can't buy half a bag of fertilizer".

The landmark study in Trinidad by Evans and Murray (1953) indicating that

there is little or no production response to fertilizer applications for mature cocoa

grown under shaded conditions has been replicated in many cocoa-producing

countries (Wessel, 1980; Wood and Lass, 1985) including Jamaica (Fagan and

Topper, 1986). Researchers chose to ignore the highly-intercropped and shaded

conditions of hillside farmers' fields in recommending fertilizer applications for cocoa

because they noted that, "poor husbandry such as excessive shade, low plant density,

poor canopy architecture and lack of insect control" were the root cause of low cocoa

productivity in Jamaica (Alvim and Trout, 1986). In other words, it was assumed that

farmers would change their entire farming system. As the results of this study show








64
farmers chose. to neither apply fertilizer to cocoa nor change their entire farming

system.

Rodent Control. Farmer experimentation in rodent control methods for

cocoa is very common. In a five year multi-media rodent control campaign in

Bangladesh, farmer innovations resulted in an 8% reduction in pod damage

compared to 50% for the recommended practice in the first year of extension

activities (Posamentier, 1994). By the fifth year, farmer innovations resulted in a

40% reduction in pod damage compared to 53% for the recommended practice.

Farmers in Berryhill were aware of a number of different rodent control methods

including the indigenous use of roseapple root, saw rat damage to their fields as a

problem, and were dissatisfied with the current CIB recommendations. Farmers

innovated in applying rat bait in their cocoa fields by combining it with other

methods. In addition, farmers used rodent control in their homes, chicken coops and

crop storage areas. Twenty-four percent of the farmers gave rat blocks to their

friends and relatives, but only after they had used some for themselves. Like

pruning, modifications in the recommended practice to save labor were evident. A

few farmers experimented by comparing two kinds of rodenticide at the same time,

tying the bait inside the bamboo station or a sardine tin and combining with other

methods such as traps or roseapple root. Other authors have also found that

resource-limited farmers test in a stepwise fashion modifying their farming practices

in increments (Johnson, 1972; Howe, 1986). For example, Houssain et al. (1987)

documented how farmers in a seven year period in Bangladesh annually altered their








65
cropping pattern in response to weather conditions, disease, and yield. Farmers with

irrigated rice fields consistently included a variety developed for rainfed conditions

because it required little fertilizer, but still fetched a good market price.

Unfortunately, all too often extension agents and researchers fail to recognize

or value farmer innovations. In a recent survey of scientists in India, only 40% noted

any unusual farmer practices (Gupta, 1989). The majority of farmer innovations

were considered to be either sub-optimal or unscientific with only a small fraction

considered worthy of further exploration. Extension agents as well may not value

farmer experimentation nor discriminate between potentially useful innovations and

those which are detrimental. Gupta (1989) asked Bangladesh extension agents to list

the most outstanding farmer innovations in their region. Afterwards, when a list of

the innovations was posted by region, extension agents objected to being associated

with the farmer practices which they had listed. Extension agents in Berryhill

thought that farmer innovations were backward or that farmers were not following

directions properly. In addition, they did not consider the differences between

different groups of farmers within the community in implementing practices. In the

present study, there were substantial differences in learning and innovations with the

cocoa management technologies by gender, age and cocoa production.


Gender Influenced Technology Transfer


As is the pattern in other parts of Jamaica, women were microproducers

(IICA/MINAG, 1988). They had significantly lower mean knowledge scores on the








66
pretest, except for rodent control, were less likely to attend the training, less likely

to obtain inputs and less likely to hear what happened at the extension activity

afterwards. Why did women not attend? The primary reason given was sickness for

older women followed by domestic or work obligations for younger women. In fact,

many of these older women were bedridden, blind, deaf or suffering from

hypertension or diabetes. The decline in their physical health had made them

dependent on much younger relatives, usually grandchildren, for their survival. For

example, 98 year old Ms. M. who participated in the on-farm trials harvested her

cocoa on the steeply-sloping, highly-intercropped plot immediately adjacent to her

house with her primary school-aged grandchildren. She gathered any other intercrops

such as bananas, mangos, and yams for domestic consumption at the same time.

Unlike coffee and other tree crops, cocoa is a crop that will consistently produce at

a low level without any management practices. In addition, the payment system in

Jamaica divides the income over the year with half the farmgate price being paid to

the farmer at the bi-weekly harvests for nine to ten months of the year and the other

half being paid in one lump sum, called a "bonus", in December. Ms. V., for

instance, has an arrangement with her nephew to harvest the cocoa and they divide

the bonus. It is considered by farmers to be a "pension" crop for this reason. Older,

ill women relied on their relatives to regularly harvest the cocoa to produce a small,

but steady cash flow. Even immediately after Hurricane Gilbert, smaller producers

continued to supply small amounts of cocoa, whereas production levels from larger

producers dropped off markedly. The pruning and fertilizer technologies which were








67

promoted at the field day clearly do not match either the production goals or

constraints of female producers. The rodent control method which involved low

labor input is a better fit, however the multi-dose requirement and cost also do not

match a production goal of small, steady income over time.

Women who attended the training were just as likely to try the technologies,

but faced a severe labor constraint for pruning. Seventy-five year old Mrs. L. was

innovative and pruned a small number of trees in the plot adjacent to her house. In

applying the technology she cut her leg with the machete, and due to her reduced

physical condition and limited access to health care, it got severely infected, so that

she had trouble walking for months afterwards.

The pattern of changing reliance on farm income over the lifespan is common

in other islands of the Caribbean. Momsen (1992) found that older farm women

(over 65 years) in Nevis and Barbados relied heavily on pensions, their own farm and

remittances from relatives compared to men who still were engaged in part-time

employment as carpenters, masons and fishermen. Younger women (ages 30 to 50

years) in the same study obtained significantly more of their income from off-farm

employment (54%).


Technology Decisions and Age


Men also recognized how the aging process would impact their cocoa

management practices. Mr. T. who is 55 years old explained that currently he is

working on the furthest field from his house (a three hour walk away) which is where








68

he tried the rat bait, but soon he will begin to concentrate his efforts on developing

the piece closest to the house because that will be the only one he will be able to

access when he gets older. Blind, 86 year old Mr. S. produces less than five boxes

for the year even though he has more than a hectare of cocoa. He has to hire a

school boy to harvest it for him because he can not afford the wages for a man. He

makes and sells domestic chocolate on the weeks when the boy does not have time

to break the cocoa pods. Taking care of himself, in his opinion, included having

already cut the wood from his piece of land for his coffin.

Older farmers were more likely to attend the training. Even though they

already knew a great deal about the three technologies, they still learned new

information. They were more likely to experiment with pruning and rodent control

methods than younger farmers which is probably why extension agents considered

them backward; they did not follow the recommended practices. Opare (1977)

found that correct knowledge of the principles for cocoa management practices and

the number of years of experience with the crop were positively associated with

adoption of the recommended practices by farmers in Ghana. He did not clarify to

what level farmers adapted the practices to their local conditions.


Cocoa Production and Management Choices


Larger cocoa producers were more likely to attend the training day. They

knew more about both pruning and rodent control methods and were more likely to

have used these methods'in their cocoa fields. They were more aware of the








69
significant role of the rising cost of labor and its link to establishing a new price for

cocoa than smaller producers. Smallholders were less likely to attend, but more of

them heard about what happened at the training afterwards. Other technology

adoption studies have shown that larger producers are more likely to adopt new

technologies and get the needed inputs to do so from extension agents, whereas

smaller producers are slower to adopt and tend to get inputs from other farmers

(Heisly et al., 1990). However, there were no differences in access to inputs by cocoa

production. Extension agents from the St. Mary Cocoa Rehabilitation project were

very egalitarian in distributing inputs. Farmers who attended the field training were

more likely to receive inputs which is a common practice among large scale

development projects in Jamaica (Blustein, 1982). Not receiving promised inputs was

one of the reasons listed for not attending past training events.

Male smallholders are part-time farmers and have to balance paid

employment with farming activities. Some commute long distances to Linstead and

Kingston and may only actually live in the area for short periods of time. The trend

of balancing paid employment and farming for smallholders is common for other

islands in the Caribbean as well (Momsen, 1992).


Information Sharing and Exchanges


Information about the three technologies was learned and retained at different

rates by the farmers in Berryhill. Both the quantity and quality of information about

the technology should improve as more farmers in an area adapt the technology to








70

local conditions (Ashby, 1986; Hildebrand, 1988). Half of the cocoa farmers in

Berryhill were exposed to the cocoa management practices. Even though farmers

who did not participate in the training heard about what happened there, this did not

change their actual knowledge of the different practices. The type of information

shared was very qualitative in nature such as they enjoyed the training, gathered

information on how to access inputs or the fact that the rat bait was stolen from the

extension agent's truck. Women and larger producers who did not attend were less

likely to hear about what happened at the field day than men. Given that very few

women attended and agricultural information is often more easily shared between

farmers of the same sex, this is not surprising. For example, in a case study from

Ecuador, men and women had different functions at which they shared agricultural

information (Wotoweic, Poats and Hildebrand, 1986). Women exchanged

information with other women at the weekly markets, whereas men shared

information at the town plaza on Sundays.

There were very few cases where one farmer demonstrated any of the

techniques to another farmer who had not attended. After only four months,

knowledge about both rodent control and pruning practices was decaying. In

contrast, the results show that farmers were far more likely to share inputs than

knowledge. Both fertilizer and rat bait were given to friends and relatives by many

farmers.










Conclusion


What got lost, reinvented or adopted?


The results of this study indicate that group training days can effectively reach

a substantial proportion of farmers in a remote rural area. Farmers were able to

learn the fundamental principles of the three technologies using this approach. It is

important to note that some details are lost such as quantity and frequency of

fertilizer application. During the posttest interviews, several farmers suggested

providing a booklet with these technical details similar to the prescription which a

doctor issues. Most importantly, different farmer groups within the community

acquired and used knowledge about the three technologies at different rates.

Gender, age and cocoa production were significant factors in determining farmers'

use of cocoa management practices. It is clear that different farmer groups within

the community have different production goals in relation to cocoa. Research and

extension personnel in Jamaica need to tailor technology recommendations to the

production goals, constraints and farming conditions of different clientele groups.

Ignoring key production conditions such as the degree of shade in farmers' fields,

labor cost and availability, and cash flow requirements, results in the non-adoption

of the practice by farmers and is a gross misuse of extension service resources.














CHAPTER 3
ON-FARM TRIALS OF RODENT CONTROL METHODS
IN INTERCROPPED COCOA FIELDS (THEOBROMA CACAO L.)


Introduction


Beans from the cacao tree, (Theobroma cacao L.), were stored as highly

valued treasure, used as a method of tax payment and valued for religious

ceremonies by the Mayan and Aztec civilizations of Central and South America

(Berdan, 1982; Young, 1994). In honor of the ancient use of the tree as a "food of

the gods" it was named by Linnaeus from the Greek theos (gods) and broma (food)

(Mossu, 1992). Today, cacao is an important export crop cultivated in more than 50

countries and its principle product, cocoa, has an average world consumption of 370

gm/person/year (Mossu, 1992). From 1987 to 1992, the African countries of Cote

d'Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria and Cameroon accounted for 60% of the world's production

(ICCO, 1992/3). The remaining 40% was distributed between South America, the

West Indies and Asia with Brazil, Dominican Republic and Malaysia being the

largest producers for each region respectively.

At a ranking of 27th, Jamaica is not one of the world's leading producers of

cocoa on the international market, yet cocoa is the nation's sixth major export crop,

earning US$ 1.8 million in needed foreign exchange in 1993 (United Nations, 1991;

Planning Institute of Jamaica, 1994). Cocoa is a prominent tree crop in the hillside

72














CHAPTER 3
ON-FARM TRIALS OF RODENT CONTROL METHODS
IN INTERCROPPED COCOA FIELDS (THEOBROMA CACAO L.)


Introduction


Beans from the cacao tree, (Theobroma cacao L.), were stored as highly

valued treasure, used as a method of tax payment and valued for religious

ceremonies by the Mayan and Aztec civilizations of Central and South America

(Berdan, 1982; Young, 1994). In honor of the ancient use of the tree as a "food of

the gods" it was named by Linnaeus from the Greek theos (gods) and broma (food)

(Mossu, 1992). Today, cacao is an important export crop cultivated in more than 50

countries and its principle product, cocoa, has an average world consumption of 370

gm/person/year (Mossu, 1992). From 1987 to 1992, the African countries of Cote

d'Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria and Cameroon accounted for 60% of the world's production

(ICCO, 1992/3). The remaining 40% was distributed between South America, the

West Indies and Asia with Brazil, Dominican Republic and Malaysia being the

largest producers for each region respectively.

At a ranking of 27th, Jamaica is not one of the world's leading producers of

cocoa on the international market, yet cocoa is the nation's sixth major export crop,

earning US$ 1.8 million in needed foreign exchange in 1993 (United Nations, 1991;

Planning Institute of Jamaica, 1994). Cocoa is a prominent tree crop in the hillside

72








73
farming system of resource-limited family farmers in Jamaica. It is principally a

smallholder crop with over 75% of the 24,000 cocoa growers farming less than 1 ha

(Alvim and Trout, 1986). Cocoa is viewed by many as an old age pension because

it will reliably produce a crop with little investment in cultural practices. It provides

a small, but steady income for nine months of the year as it is harvested from March

through June (spring crop) and from August through December (fall crop).

Traditionally, cocoa is intensely intercropped with a wide range of plant species

important for domestic food production and export markets including bananas,

Jamaica's second largest export crop (US$ 35.9 million), coconuts (US$ 9.8 million)

and yams (US$ 9.5 million for export and US$ 3.7 million for domestic) (Planning

Institute of Jamaica, 1994).

Farmers relying on a regular income from intercropped cocoa lose a

considerable amount of the mature crop annually to both black pod disease

(Phytophthora palmivora Butl. Butl.) and rodent damage (Fagan, 1984). It is well-

known that black pod disease flourishes under the heavily shaded, moist tropical

conditions where cocoa is grown (Fulton, 1989). Many researchers have observed

indirect losses attributed to an increased incidence of black pod disease in rodent-

invested fields, yet few studies have quantified the relationship (Smith and Nott,

1988; Buckle, 1994). Unlike other cocoa-growing countries where many different

rodent species damage the crop, on the island of Jamaica the number of rodent

species is limited to five and only the roof rat (Rattus rattus L.) is responsible for

cocoa pod damage (Topper, 1982; Townsend, 1992). The Cocoa Industry Board








74
(CIB) estimates that farmers in Jamaica lose, on average, 20% of the crop annually

to rodent damage (Topper, 1988) which is similar to estimated rodent damage from

other Caribbean countries (20 to 50% in Grenada and Dominica, Fielder, 1989), but

is considerably higher than average worldwide rodent damage estimates of 5% to

10% (Entwhistle, 1985). Measurement of pod damage in ten fields in the Parish of

St. Catherine prior to initiating the on-farm research trials for the present study

indicated that farmers who were producing between 4 and 13 boxes of wet cocoa/ha

(1 box = 25 kg, CIB, 1993) suffered annual losses due to rodents ranging from 15 to

45%.

R. rattus is also an important agricultural pest for many of the economically-

important crops which are intercropped with cocoa by smallholders. In Jamaica,

estimates of crop losses due to R. rattus range from 5% to 36% for coconuts, 5% for

sugarcane, and 2% for coffee (Wilson, 1982). Several studies have shown that a

cocoa-coconut intercropping system is particularly susceptible to a high incidence of

rodent damage (Wilson, 1982; Lee and Arikiah, 1984). Wood (1994) suggests that

the level of rodent damage changes with the cropping pattern. Rodent damage to

cocoa increases substantially when cocoa is intercropped with other food crops as is

the practice for smallholders. In this case, the intercrops supplement the rodent's

diet because cocoa pods alone are inadequate, thereby attracting the rodents to the

area for an extended period of time. When cocoa is intercropped with only timber

species, as is the common practice for larger producers, research stations and

government estates, then rodent damage to cocoa is less severe. A review of cocoa








75
research in Jamaica indicates that few studies have focused on alternative rodent

control methods and no experimental trials have been established in highly-

intercropped cocoa fields (Fagan and Topper, 1988; CIB, 1987; MINAG, 1964-70).


Rodent Control Techniques


Fiedler et. al. (1991) classified the numerous rodent control techniques used

in agricultural fields into three categories: 1) physical barriers; 2) biological methods;

and 3) chemical methods. Physical barriers (traps, constructing barriers around trees,

and dikes) have limited application in cocoa fields due to cost, ineffectiveness and

ease with which rats can avoid barriers placed on the ground by climbing from crown

to crown within the closed canopy of the stand. Few biological methods (introduced

predators, parasites, genetic manipulation and habitat modification) have been shown

to control rodent damage in cocoa. In addition, biological methods have had adverse

effects as is the case with introduced predators such as the mongoose which became

a significant agricultural pest in Jamaica (Entwhistle, 1985). Chemical methods

(rodenticides) are most often used in rodent control programs because they are cost

effective and, when used correctly, are relatively safe to non-target species (Buckle,

1994).

Acute and chronic are the two classes of rodenticides which are used in

chemical control methods (Fiedler et al., 1991). Acute chemicals tend to be fast-

acting, single-dose rodenticides such as zinc phosphide, but require a period of pre-

baiting where non-toxic bait is set in the field so that the rats do not associate eating








76

the bait with death. Bait shyness happens when rats will not eat the bait because

they have learned of its lethal impact and can render acute rodenticides ineffective

in long term rodent control programs required for tree crops such as cocoa.

Chronic rodenticides such as warfarin, diphacinone or coumatetralyl tend to

be slower-acting, multiple-dose toxins that act as anticoagulants by inhibiting the

production of Vitamin K in the body, thus reducing blood clotting ability. Rats do

not associate the baits with illness, thus bait shyness tends not to be a problem.

Multiple feedings are needed for the older "first generation" anticoagulants to be

effective, therefore, large quantities of the bait material are required. Farmers also

must be able to constantly monitor and refill bait stations for a minimum of five days.

Due to the slow nature of death from chronic rodenticides, rats often die away from

the fields so farmers will see few, if any, dead animals. The newer "second

generation" anticoagulants such as brodifacoum, bromodialone and flocoumafen are

all single-dose rodenticides which require less bait material and less labor on the part

of the farmer in monitoring bait consumption.


Rodent Control Efforts in Jamaica


Jamaican farmers are aware of the extent of rodent damage in their

intercropped cocoa fields. In a 1990 agricultural survey in St. Catherine, 67% of the

farmers growing cocoa indicated having problems with rodents, yet 40% used no

control method (Todd Bockarie, 1993). Jamaican extension service brochures dating

back to the 1950s have recommended the use of chronic anticoagulant rodenticides








77
mixed by hand with cornmeal or later commercially-prepared wax blocks (Banks,

1958; CIB, 1963; Topper, 1988). Unreplicated tests by the Plant Protection Division

in 1966/67 at three research stations indicated that wax blocks could effectively

control rodent damage. Initial damage reports of 29% to 41% were reduced to less

than 2% (Topper, 1988). During the 1970s more than 273 demonstrations were given

on the use of anticoagulant wax blocks in rodent control. Farmers were instructed

to place bait materials in a section of bamboo tied into the first jorquette (branch)

at 1.5 to 2 m. from the ground. Since the introduction of rodenticides, the CIB has

subsidized up to 72% of the cost annually. In 1989, 59,412 lb of rodenticide blocks

were distributed to farmers at the subsidized price (CIB, 1989). The CIB suggested

that the availability of subsidized bait is one of the limiting factors in farmers

adoption of the technology (Topper, 1982). However, other factors such as cost,

single vs. multiple-dose and amount required were found to be more important to

farmers in the pretest/posttest study.

Current recommendations suggest 120 gm of anticoagulant block per bait

station with one bait station for every 10 to 30 trees depending on the density of the

cocoa trees (8 to 10 kg of rodenticide per ha of cocoa) (CIB, 1990). In Jamaica, the

cost to the farmer of applying the recommended rodenticide varies dependent on

where the farmer is able to purchase it. It would cost a smallholder with 1 ha of

cocoa J$110/ha for rodent control for a single cropping season if s/he were able to

purchase the correct quantity of rodenticide at subsidized prices from the government

extension service (1991 exchange rate of J$ 21 = US$1). Unfortunately, farmers








78

often only have resources for purchasing single blocks from the local market

(J$360/ha) or a commercial farm store (J$225/ha), thereby making the technology

considerably more expensive if they purchased the full quantity required by the end

of the season and less effective if they did not because the rodents were not exposed

to the large quantity of rodenticide required for death to result. Other problems

associated with using wax blocks have been poisoning of non-target animals, farmers'

complaints of reduced effectiveness because of non-use by neighboring farmers

(Topper, 1979) and farmers not judging them to be effective because dead rats are

not evident.

Traditionally, farmers have developed and used a wide range of local rodent

control methods including: ground glass, dry cement, traps, cats and locally-made

poisons from the boiled root of the roseapple tree (Syzygium jambos (L.) Alston)

mixed with cornmeal. The root bark of the roseapple tree contains the alkaloid

jambocine (C6HNsNO3) which is believed to be toxic (Merck & Company, 1952;

Morton, 1981; Williams and Schubert, 1961). The mechanism by which jambocine

is toxic to rats is not known.

Another low-cost, local alternative is to use fermented leaves of the

leguminous shade tree Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Walp. which have been traditionally

used by farmers in Central America and Mexico to control rodent damage (Ford,

1987; Standley and Stegermark, 1946). Hochman (1965) identified the active agent

produced from fermented leaves of G. sepium to be a known anticoagulant

rodenticide, dicoumerol. Alpen (1965) substantiated the anticoagulant nature of








79

Gliricidia leaves in a controlled laboratory experiment with rats. Seventy percent of

the rats fed 0.5 gm of fermented gliricidia leaves three times daily for six days died

in an average of 14 days. Pathological findings indicated hemorrhaging in the gut,

lung and spleen.


Study Objectives


Farmers currently debate the effectiveness of commercial anticoagulant wax

blocks for controlling rodents in intercropped cocoa fields. A comparison between

first and second generation commercial rodenticides with local materials has not

been performed to date. The purpose of the present study was to compare the

effectiveness under farmers' conditions of commercial rodenticides to the locally-

prepared roseapple root and gliricidia bait mixtures. Effectiveness of rodent control

was assessed based on reduction in rodent damage to mature cocoa pods, a decrease

in a rodent activity index, bait consumption patterns, an economic analysis and

farmer use preferences.


Methods


The Study Site


Rodent control trials were established in 1992 on farms in the town of Cocoa

Walk located in the Williamsfield District of the Parish of St. Catherine, Jamaica

(180 12'N and 76058'W). The Rio Doro river flows through the area and is one of

the tributaries which comprise the Rio Cobre Watershed. The Rio Cobre supplies








79

Gliricidia leaves in a controlled laboratory experiment with rats. Seventy percent of

the rats fed 0.5 gm of fermented gliricidia leaves three times daily for six days died

in an average of 14 days. Pathological findings indicated hemorrhaging in the gut,

lung and spleen.


Study Objectives


Farmers currently debate the effectiveness of commercial anticoagulant wax

blocks for controlling rodents in intercropped cocoa fields. A comparison between

first and second generation commercial rodenticides with local materials has not

been performed to date. The purpose of the present study was to compare the

effectiveness under farmers' conditions of commercial rodenticides to the locally-

prepared roseapple root and gliricidia bait mixtures. Effectiveness of rodent control

was assessed based on reduction in rodent damage to mature cocoa pods, a decrease

in a rodent activity index, bait consumption patterns, an economic analysis and

farmer use preferences.


Methods


The Study Site


Rodent control trials were established in 1992 on farms in the town of Cocoa

Walk located in the Williamsfield District of the Parish of St. Catherine, Jamaica

(180 12'N and 76058'W). The Rio Doro river flows through the area and is one of

the tributaries which comprise the Rio Cobre Watershed. The Rio Cobre supplies




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs