Advertisement

Working with Farmers to Develop Integrated Tick Management

  • J. W. Ssennyonga
Biological Control, Natural Products and Social Science

Abstract

Paper discusses five substantive issues affecting farmer participation (FP) in the development of integrated tick management (ITM). These are the concepts, methods, incentives for and constraints to farmer participation (FP), and finally, case study material illustrating how FP has contributed to the research and development of integrated tick management.

Key Words

Farmer participation concepts methods incentive constraints contribution integrated tick management 

Résumé

L’article discute cinq points affectant la participation du paysan dans le développement de la lutte integrée contre les tiques. Ceci sont des conceptes, méthodes, encouragement pour et des constrain tes a la participation du paysan et finalement, l’étude illustrant comment la participation du paysan a contribue a la recherche développment de la lutte integrée contre les tiques.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ashby J. A., Quiros C. A. and Rivers Y. M. (1989a) Farmer participation in technology development: work with crop varieties. In Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research (Edited by Chambers R., Pacey A. and Thrupp L. A.), pp. 115–122. Intermediate Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Ashby J. A., Quiros C. A. and Rivers Y. M. (1989b) Experience with group techniques in Colombia. In Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research (Edited by Chambers R., Pacey A. and Thrupp L. A.), pp. 127–132. Intermediate Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Baker G., Knipscheer H. and Neto J. (1988) The impactofregular research field hearings (RRFH). In On-Farm Trials in North-East Brazil. Experimental Agriculture. Vol. 24. pp. 281–288.Google Scholar
  4. Chambers R., Pacey A. and Thrupp L. A. (editors) (1989) Farmer First: Farmer Innovations and Agricultural Research. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.Google Scholar
  5. Farrington J. and Martin A. (1988) Farmer participation in agricultural research. In A Review of Concepts and Practices. Agricultural Administration Unit. Overseas Development Institute. Occasional Paper 9. London.Google Scholar
  6. International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) (1989) Annual Report pp. 36–37.Google Scholar
  7. Johnson A. W. (1972) Individuality and experimentation in traditional agriculture. Human Ecology 1, 448–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kean S. A. (1988) Developing a partnership between fanners and scientists: The example of Zambia’s adaptive research planning team. Experimental Agriculture Vol. 24, Overseas Development Institute, London, pp. 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mathias-Mundy E. and McCorckle C. (1992) Ethnoveterinary medicine: An annotated bibliography. In Bibliographies in Technology and Social Change Programme. Iowa State University. Ames, Iowa (in press).Google Scholar
  10. Mathias-Mundy E. (1989a) Of herbs and healers. In Information Center for Low External Input. Agriculture Newsletter. October. Leusden, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  11. Mathias-Mundy E. (1989b) Ethnoveterinary medicine: An annotated bibliography. Creative Component, Iowa State University.Google Scholar
  12. Matlon P., Cantrell R., King D. and Benoit Cattin M. (editors) (1984) Coming Full Circle, Farmers Participation in the Development of Technology. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
  13. McCorkle C. M. (1989) Veterinary anthropology. Human Organisation 48.Google Scholar
  14. McIntire J. (1984) Survey costs and rural economics research. In Coming Full Circle, Farmers’ Participation in the Development of Technology. (Edited by Matlon P., Cantrell R., King D. and Benoit-Cattin M.). International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
  15. McPherson H., and McGarry M. G. (1987) User participation and implementation strategies in water and sanitation projects. Int. J. Water Res. Dev. 3, 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Raman K. V. (1989) Scientists training and interactions with fanners in India. In Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research (Edited by Chambers R., Pacey A. and Thrupp L.A.), pp. 169–175. Intermediate Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Rhoades R. E. and Booth R. H. (1982) Farmer-back-to-farmer: A model for generating acceptable agricultural technology. Agric. Adm. 11, 127–137.Google Scholar
  18. Ssennyonga J. W. (1992a) The implication of a community-based approach to the development of IPM Technologies. Insect Sci. Applic. (In press).Google Scholar
  19. Ssennyonga J. W. (1992b) Farmers’ knowledge and control of vectors of diseasesof domestic animals. In Popular Perceptions of Pests and Vectors of Diseases of Domestic Animals (Edited by Prah K.), (in press). ICIPE Science Press, Nairobi.Google Scholar
  20. Sumberg J. and Okali C. (1989) Farmers on-farm research and new technology. In Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research (Edited by Chambers R., Pacey A. and Thrupp L. A.), pp. 109–114. Intermediate Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Tatchell R. J., Chimwani D., Chirchir S. J., Ong’are J. O., Mwangi E., Rinkanya F. and Whittington D. (1986) Astudy of the justification for intensive tick control in Kenyan rangelands. In The Veterinary Record. October 1986 pp. 401–403.Google Scholar
  22. Whyte W. F. (1981) Participatory Approaches to Agricultural Research and Developmenf. A State-of-the-Art-Paper. Rural Development Committee, Centre for International Studies, Cornell University, USA. p. 111.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICIPE 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. W. Ssennyonga
    • 1
  1. 1.The International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE)NairobiKenya

Personalised recommendations