Previous - Next
Section 13 - Training programme synopsis
Keynote address by the FAO representative in the
Philippines on the opening ceremony of the international training
course on training of trainors in integrated pest management
strategies in grain storage Naphire, Munoz, Nueva Ecija 6 june
1988
International training course on training of
trainors in integrated pest management strategies in grain
storage june 6-18, 1988
Administrator Emil L. Ong of the National Food Authority, Executive Director, Francisco L. Tua of NAPHIRE, Deputy Executive Director, Jose B. Santos of NAPHIRE, Mr. R. Semple of RAS/861189, Participants, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen.
On behalf of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, it is a great honour to deliver the keynote address to this Training Course organized by the National Post-Harvest Institute for Research and Extension (NAPHIRE) and RAS/86/189.
I would like to thank NAPHIRE for co-sponsoring this Course, particularly Mr Tua. We at FAO, are indeed very happy that NAPHIRE has agreed to cosponsor this Training Course, which is an example of TCDC at work, or Technical Cooperation Among Developing Countries. As you are fully aware, FAO supports and encourages such kind of activities, which will lead towards the mutual advantages of the participating countries. The holding of this Training Course is very timely cosidering that most of the developing countries are in the midst of intensified food production programme, not only in grains but also in other food commodities, as well.
As we all know, the advent of the "green revolution" in the early '70's had ushered a major breakthrough in the production of foodgrains, particularly rice in the Asian region. However, this had also created various problems on the part of beneficiaries, particularly the small farmers, which required concerted efforts to solve, on the part of the governments and the private sector.
A tremendous amount of the incremental production is being lost due to poor post-harvest handling and processing. Most developing countries were caught offguard and very few of them have the necessary infrastructure facilities to minimize post-harvest losses, particularly on the aspects of storage. This was compounded by the losses due to various pests which most farmers are taking for granted. However, if we have to value these losses, these would amount to millions of dollars, as I understand that post-harvest losses could range from 10% up to 37%, from harvesting to milling. I do not want to touch on the more technical aspects of post-harvest handling, particularly on Integrated Pest Management, as I was informed that you will be given a very comprehensive programme, both on the theoretical, as well as on the practical aspects of IPM during your 12-day stay in this Institution.
Due to the enormity of the problems, FAO was prompted in 1977 to launch its Prevention of Food Losses Programme or PFL for short. The basic purpose of this programme is to catalyse awareness of the importance of food loss prevention and to assist developing countries in their efforts to identify the food losses which ocur throughout the post-harvest system and to implement national food loss reduction projects.
The main activities of PFL projects are:
In the case of the Philippines, several projects were implemented by FAO, such as:
These projects, to some extent, had assisted the Philippine Government in its efforts to minimize postharvest losses.
FAO for its part will continue to assist member countries, in particular, the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Most Seriously Affected Countries (MSA) and Food Priority Countries (FPC) to initiate and strengthen national food loss reduction programmes with the view to increase food availability, safeguard food quality and thereby improve the living standards of rural people.
However, the implementation of much bigger and long-term projects and programmes should be the primary concern of member governments.
Although lately, there has been much emphasis given by governments in the prevention of food losses, the progress in most developing countries in general has been unfortunately sluggish. There is still a lot which remains to be done as most of the small farmers lack the expertise and the needed investment requirement even for the most basic post-harvest facilities. If your respective governments could only reduce post-harvest losses by one-half, that would mean an increase in production of about 18%.
With regard to your Training Course, I should say that you are fortunate enough to be given the opportunity to be trained in this Institution. It has the best facilities in post-harvest operation, in addition to its qualified staff.
NAPHIRE, I was informed, is the first of its kind in Southeast Asia to specialize on post-harvest research and development work. Its present activities which cover food and feed protection, post-harvest facilities design and development and post-harvest systems analysis are all geared in support of the food industry development in the country. I was also informed of research breakthroughs in the prevention of aflatoxins contamination, insect pests control, and the Khapra Beetle, which I understand is the most dreaded pest in grain storage. In addition, it has developed improved post-harvest equipments which are appropriate and economical for small-scale operation. These, I'm sure, would benefit your respective countries. There are many lessons to be learned and numerous problems to solve, but make the most of your presence here, and profit from each others experiences.
I should only request, that after the completion of your training programme here, for you to initiate a more expanded programme on the prevention of postharvest losses not only for rice but for other agricultural commodities, as well.
FAO particularly, would also be happy to see when you return to your country to please share with your colleagues, the knowledge and expertise that you will acquire in this Institution. I am quite certain that the dissemination of this additional knowledge will accelerate the prevention of food losses in your respective countries.
However, you must always bear in mind that there is no standard method that suits all the needs of the various countries that are represented here. The programme that you should implement must always consider the needs and requirements of the small farmers and must be applicable to the local conditions.
I am confident that this Training Course will adequately prepare you for these challenges. I could say this because your programme, whichk will deal both on the theoretical as well as practical aspects, was planned jointly by post-harvest specialists from FAO, NAPHIRE, and NFA. You will also have the full support and guidance of an experienced training staff from the academe as well as from post-harvest related agencies.
Let me end by wishing you all a pleasent stay in this Institution and a most productive training course.
Thank you and Good Day!
I. Background
One of the most serious problems besetting the safe storage of grains particularly in the humid tropics is pest infestation. While there are many technologies on storage pest control, their adoption so far has been very much lagging behind due to limited trained manpower and lack of extension programs on these mature technologies. Therefore, there is a critical need to strengthen the training capabilities of institutions involved in postharvest operations particularly stored products pest management.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations through the Regional Network on Postharvest Technology and Quality Control of Foodgrains (REGNET), in its bid to enhance technology transfer in postharvest has conceived a training course in Integrated Pest Management. The REGNET is composed of 13 Network Member Countries (NMC's) which include Bangladesh, Burma, Peoples Republic of China, Republic of Korea, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam. REGNET aims to establish Inter-Country Cooperation on grains postharvest technology in the Asian region through consolidating institutional linkages in each of the NMC's. The REGNET is geared towards the improvement of the postharvest systems, thus enhancing food security in the region, through promoting a permanent dialogue and the exchange of information, expertise and technology.
The course is designed for trainors involved in pest control programmes and agricultural extension services related to pest control practices on stored grains.
II. Objectives
The training course is envisaged to strengthen the training capabilities of the NMC's and to enhance the transfer of existing technologies in IPM among national institutions in the region.
Learning Objectives.
The participants should be able to:
1. Understand the state of the grain postharvest industry in Asia, specifically the grain storage pest situation in the context of the technical, socioeconomic and cultural conditions in the region, the researches undertaken, relevant results and technologies generated.
2. Know the physico-chemical properties of grain as these relate to stored grain pest management; process of grain deterioration, dry matter loss and grain fissuring.
3. Acquire knowledge and skills on the management and control of pests in storage.
4. Familiarize themselves on the critical role of storage methods and systems as these relate to grain pest infestation and control.
5. Know the concepts, principles and practices of postharvest technology extension with emphasis on training design, planning and implementation, and skills teaching.
III. Methodology
The course was focused on a systems viewpoint addressing the major components of Integrated Pest Management. As such the training course was designed to incorporate five working modules namely; state-of-the-art of the Asian grain postharvest industry, grain properties, pest infestation in storage, storage methods and systems and training and extension. These components were integrated into a wide range of training methodologies such as lectures, open forum, laboratories and field simulation exercises and country reports. It utilized small and big group sessions and buzz sessions whenever needed. A training facilitator was in charge to oversee the overall direction of the course. An inhouse bulletin called the IPM Communique was produced by the Training Management to account and monitor highlights of the training course.
The course was organized by the Training and Extension Department of NAPHIRE in cooperation with REGNET Regional Coordinator Robert L. Semple. It was conducted at the National Postharvest Institute for Research and Extension in Munoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines on June 6-18, 1988.
IV. Profile of Course Participants
The participants to the course were categorized into official participants and observers.
Participants included pest control officials operating or managing pest and quality control at either government or cooperative level storage, or extension workers involved in agricultural extension services related to pest control practices. There were 12 participants and 17 observers to the course.
One hundred percent (12) of the official participants came from government institutions. Fifty eight percent (7) are pest and quality control officers while 25 percent (3) are research and extension workers. Seventeen percent (2) belong to top management of government institutions. Forty two percent (5) have Bachelor of Science courses while the other 42 percent (5) have finished their Master of Science courses.
For the observers, 61 percent (10) work in government agencies like the National Food Authority and Department of Agriculture. Thirty three percent (6) are pest and quality control officers while sixty seven percent (13) are extension workers, researhers and instructors. Eighty-two percent (14) finished their B.S. while 30 percent 18 percent finished their M.S. Seventy five percent (13) have major in plant protection, agriculture and chemistry.
V. Resource Persons Profile
Fifty nine percent or (13) of the speakers came from the University of the Philippines at Los Banos, the National Food Authority, the Central Luzon State University, IDRC/SEARCA while 41 percent were inhouse speakers. Forty three percent of (9) of the speakers are Ph.D. holders while 24 percent have finished M.S. Fifty five percent of the Ph.D. holders major in Pathology and Entomology while the rest in allied disciplines.
Assessment of the general evaluation of the training course revealed that the strongest point of the course was the pool of competent and credible interdisciplinary lecturers.
V. Administrative Details
A. Accommodation and Registration
1. The foreign participants were first billeted at the Metropolitan Apartelle in Quezon City. They were transported to Munoz, Nueva Ecija after the brief tour around Metro Manila. The participants were then billeted at the guest house and in of the Central Luzon State University and afterwards were transferred to the executive suites of the NAPHIRE Training Dormitory where they stayed throughout the entire duration of the course. The other participants were accommodated in the Training Dormitory.
2. A package of training materials which include a bag, pad papers training brochure, pamphlets, l-shirt and posters were provided to the participants (observers included)
B. Meals and Snacks
1. Meals were served at the Executive lounge, while snacks were served at the Session hall.
2. The participants were asked about their food preferences, which served as guide for the caterer for food preparation.
3. Participants were encouraged to see the food caterer if they have complaints or special food arrangements.
C. Laundry Services
1. Cost of laundry sevices were charged against the individual participants. Laundry services were coordinated by the dormitory matron.
D. Transportation Services
Transport services were provided by the Institute throughout the duration of the training course. Stand by vehicles were provided to respond to the immediate needs of the participants.
Evaluation Procedure
A. Benchmark Evaluation
To have a logical basis for measuring the possible learning of the participants, a benchmark evaluation was made to test the participants initial knowledge on the subject matter and its degree of relevance to their work.
Before the training course, the participant's average perceived level of knowledge as revealed by the pre-test is 66.36 percent. On the other hand, 60 percent of the participants were slightly aware of the objectives of the training program thus slightly aware of the relevance of the training course to their work.
Another activity that was done to lay down the grounds for better mechanics of the training course was the expectation surfacing. The expectations of the participants vary from general to specific, these are the following:
B. Post-training Evaluation
After the training course, its effectiveness was evaluated vis-a-vis the learning objectives and was determined in terms of measuring knowledge gained, participants performance and participation, relevance to work and resource speaker's competence.
Knowledge gained
The level of knowledge after the training increased from 67 percent to 84 percent, while new knowledge gained was quantified at 78 percent.
Participants performance
The achievement of the participants was measured through a written essay type of examination covering the topics discussed in the course.
Based on the result of the examination, the average (mean) score was 78 (which could be taken as the passing score). The number of participants who attained grade above the passing score was 56 percent. Two participants got perfect scores. While the rest got scores below the mean score.
Sixty four percent scores above the mean average score of 84 percent during the post-test.
Participant's participation
Seventy two percent of the participants rated their relationship with other participants very satisfactory while 74 percent has very satisfactory relationship with the training management staff. One hundred percent of the participants rated very satisfactory the relationship with the resource speakers.
Resource Speakers Competence
Eighty six percent of the participants rated the resource speaker's competence to be from very good to excellent.
Fifty percent rated the subject knowledge of the resource speakers excellent while 41 percent agreed that the speakers have very good subject knowledge. Eighty seven percent graded the resource speakers presentation to range from very good to excellent.
Expectations met
Ninety two percent of the participants noted that their expectations from the training course were well met. On the other hand, 90 percent said that in general the objectives of the training were met and 88 percent rated that the objectives were fully met.
Relevance to work
Seventy eight percent of the participants said that the knowledge and skills gained in the training are very useful to them and in their work. Fifty percent of the participants noted that socioeconomic aspects of IPM should be given more emphasis. Generally the participants underscored the importance of more practical and laboratory activities like simulation exercises and field trips to village and farm level storage.
Hand outs
Ninety-four percent agreed that the hand-outs help them much in the acquisition of knowledge from the different topics.
Fifty eight percent prefered the hand-outs to be in manual form while 70 percent want the hand-outs distributed either before or after the lecture.
Course Administration
The course administration was generally rated very good. Sixty percent rated the accommodations to be from very good to excellent. Eighty four percent rated the training facilities to be from very good to excellent while 92 percent rated the training management was from very good to excellent.
IV. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Bangladesh
Mr. Nazrul Islam
Senior Scientific Officer (Entomology)
Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute
Joydebpur, Gazipur
Mr. Tapan Kumar Dey
Scientific Officer (Plant Pathology)
Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute
Republic of Korea
Mr. Son Jong Rok
Junior Researcher
Agricultural Products Utilization Division
Institute of Agricultural Science
Rural Development Administration, DOB
250 Seodundong Suweon 170
Mr. Yoo Choon-Cheol
Agricultural Technician Experimental station
National Agricultural Product Inspection Office (NAPIO)
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries
Nepal
Mr. Ganesh Kumar
Entomologist, Rural Save Grain Campaign
Ministry of Agriculture
Mr. Satyendra Prusad Singh
Asst. Plant Pathologist
Agriculture Station
Parwanipur, Nepal
Philippines
Mr. Alexander Joel A. Gibe
Research Assistant II, Food Protection Department
NAPHIRE
Ms. Adelaida Genito
Sr. Pest Control Officer
Technical Services Directorate
National Food Authority
Sri Lanka
Mrs. B.M.K.S. Tilakaratne
Research and Training Officer
Rice Processing Research and Development Centre
Jayanthi Mawatha
Anuradhapura
Mr. N.B. Liyanaarachchi
Assistant Food Contoller (Pest Control)
Food Department Store Complex
MiIk Board Road
Narahenpita Colombo 5
Vietnam
Mr. Vu Quoc Trung
Chief of Discipline Pest Control
Hanoi Institute of Postharvest Technology
Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry
Thung Dinh Dongda, Hanoi
Mrs. Vuong Thi Hieu
Director
Institute for Designing Agricultural Construction
Projects and Food Storages
Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry
Hanoi
List of Observers
Mr. Dionisio Alvindia
Research Assistant II, Food Protection Department
NAPHIRE
Ms. Lucia B. Salamat
Research Assistant lll, Food Protection Department
NAPHIRE
Mr. Restituto Donceras, Jr.
Research Associate I
Technology Resource Development Directorate
National Food Authority
Mr. Faith G. Rufo
Sr. Industrial Training Officer
Extension Directorate
National Food Auhority
Mr. Leopoldo Daquiz
Pest Control Officer I
Bulacan Branch Office
National Food Authority
Region lll
Mr. Ricardo Arriola
Quality control Officer
Vitarich Corporation
Makati, Metro Manila
Prof. Apolonia Lalap
Professor, College of Agriculture
Central Luzon State University'
Munoz, Nueva Ecija
Ms. Edwina dela Pena
Industrial Training Officer
Extension Directorate
National Food Authority
Ms. Amelia Bautista
Industrial Training Assistant
Extension directorate
National Food Authority
Mr. Dominador Ong
Agricultural Extension Training Specialist
Agricultural Training Institute
Elliptical Road
Quezon City
Mr. Antonio Cruz, Sr.
Agricultural Project Coordinator
Fertilizer & Pesticide Authority
Makati, Metro Manila
Ms. Myrna Raymundo
Sr. Pest Control Officer
Technical Services Directorate
National Food Authority
Ms. Teresita Danas
Technical Services Directorate
National Food Authority
Ms. Zenaida Martinez
Regional Standard & Quality Assurance Officer
National Food Authority
Region II
Santiago, Isabela
Mr. Rolando Mitra
National Food Authority
Metro Manila Office
Mr. Karma Tashi
Agricultural Extension Education Student
Central Luzon State University
Department of Agriculture, Thimpu, bhutan
List of Faculty
A. NAPHIRE
1. Francisco L. Tua Executive Director
2. Jose B. Santos Deputy Executive Director
3. Engr. Billy T. Belonio Research Assistant, Systems Analysis & Dev't. Dept.
4. Engr. Nicasio M. Quindoza Research Assistant, Facilities Processes Design and Development Department
5. Engr. Ruben E. Manalabe Manager, Facilities/Processes Design & Devt. Dept.
6. Ms. Miriam A. Acda Research Assistant, Food Protection Dept.
7. Mr. Rolando L. Tiongson Research Associate, Food Protection Dept.
8. Mr. Josue S. Falla Senior Training Officer, Training & Extension Dept.
9. Engr. Rodolfo P. Estigoy Technical Writer, Training and Extension Dept.
B. Guest Faculty
1. Dr. Romeo Rejesus (Ph.D. In Entomology) Entomologist, Department of Entomology UPLB, College, Laguna Philippines
2. Dr. Melanda Hoque (Ph.D. In Entomology) Research Scientist, National Crop Protection Centre UPLB, College, Laguna Philippines
3. Prof. Leo Rimando (M.S. in Acarology) Professor, Department of Entomology UPLB, College, Laguna Philippines
4. Dr. Adelaida Quiniones (Ph.D. in Entomology) Director for Training, Research & Extension Central Luzon State University Munoz, Nueva Ecija Philippines
5. Dr. Rosalinda C. Garcia (Ph.D. in Postharvest Pathology) Researcher and Affiliate Professor National Crop Protection Centre & Institute of Biological Sciences UPLB, College, Laguna Philippines
6. Dr. Lina flag (Ph. D. in Plant Pathology) Professor, Department of Pathology UPLB, College, Laguna Philippines
7. Dr. Silvestre C. Andales (Ph.D. in Engineering) Professor, College of Engineering and Agroindustrial Technology UPLB, College, Laguna Philippines
8. Dr. Rosita L. Rose (Ph.D. in Development Communication) Professor, Central Luzon State University Munoz, Nueva Ecija Philippines
9. Dr. Zenaida Toquero (Ph.D. in Agricultural Economics) Visiting Scientist, IDRC/SEARCA UPLB, College, Laguna Philippines
10. Dr. Anselmo L. Lupday (Ph.D. in Psychology) Vice President for Administration Central Luzon State University Munoz, Nueva Ecija Philippines
11. Engr. Crestituto Mangaoang (M.S. in Agricultural Engineering) Acting Director, Technology Resources Development Directorate National Food Authority Quezon City, Philippines
12. Ms. Rebecca Sampang (B.S. in Chemistry) Division Chief, Technology Resources Development Directorate National Food Authority quezon City, Philippines
13. Ms. Wenifreda C. Fajardo (B.S. in Chemistry) Section Chief, Bio-Physical & Culinary Testing Laboratory Technical Services Directorate National Food Authority Quezon City, Philippines
Recommendations
This report also lists the summary of recommendations made by the participants, among them: