Main Article Content

Abstract

Produktivitas lahan sawah beririgasi di Desa Sumber Agung, Bengkulu Utara masih rendah. Petani mempraktekkan budidaya padi secara konvensional dengan masukan pupuk dan pestisida kimia. Sekolah lapang pengelolaan hama terpadu (SLPHT) dilakukan untuk meningkatkan pengetahuan tentang ekosistem tanaman dan produktivitas padi sawah, dan mengurangi penggunaan pestisida kimia. Kegiatan dilakukan pada demplot seluas +7.500 m2, untuk membandingkan sistem pengelolaan hama terpadu (PHT) dengan sistem konvensional. Petani peserta SLPHT dilatih melakukan pengamatan ekosistem tanaman setiap minggu selama satu musim tanam (11 kali pertemuan). Hasil kegiatan menunjukkan adanya peningkatan pengetahuan petani tentang ekosistem padi dan pengelolaan tanaman sehat dan hama penyakit tanaman hampir dua kali lipat dengan skor nilai dari 42.72 menjadi 83.52. Aplikasi pestisida nabati dan agensia hayati dilakukan pada petak PHT sebanyak 3 kali,  sedangkan aplikasi pada petak konvensional sebanyak 8 kali dengan menggunakan pestisida kimia. Serangan dari hama burung pipit yang tidak bisa ditanggulangi menyebabkan produktivitas rendah. Hasil ubinan gabah kering panen (GKP) pada petak PHT adalah 2.3 + 0.36 kg (setara 2.172 ton per Ha) sedangkan pada petak konvensional 2.06 + 0.38 kg (setara 1.94 per Ha).

Keywords

Demplot Hama Penyakit Monitoring Ekosistem Padi Sawah Produktivitas

Article Details

How to Cite
Apriyanto, D., Pamekas, T., & Nadrawati. (2022). Sekolah Lapang Pengelolaan Hama Terpadu (SLPHT) di Desa Sumber Agung Bengkulu Utara. Dharma Raflesia : Jurnal Ilmiah Pengembangan Dan Penerapan IPTEKS, 20(2), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.33369/dr.v20i2.21471

References

  1. BPP (2021). Laporan Program Penyuluhan Desa.
  2. Bartlett, A. (2005). Farmer field schools to promote integrated pest management in Asia: the FAO experience, Workshop on Scaling Up Case Studies in Agriculture, IRRI.
  3. Barzman, M., Bàrberi, P., Birch, A. N. E., Boonekamp, P., Dachbrodt-Saaydeh, S., Graf, B., Hommel, B., Jensen, J. E., Kiss, J., Kudsk, P., Lamichhane, J. R., Messéan, A., Moonen, A. C., Ratnadass, A., Ricci, P., Sarah, J. L., Sattin, M. (2015). Eight principles of integrated pest management. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35 (4), 1199–1215.
  4. Dhakal, A. & Poudel, S. (2020). Integrated pest management (IPM) and its application in rice – a review. Reviews In Food And Agriculture, 1(2), 39-43.
  5. Horgan, F. G. (2017). Integrated pest management for sustainable rice cultivation: a holistic approach, pp. 309–342. In: T. Sasaki (ed.), Achieving Sustainable Cultivation of Rice, vol. 2. Burleigh Dodds, Cambridge, United Kingdom
  6. Horgan, F. G. & Kudavidanage, E. P. (2020). Use and avoidance of pesticides as responses by farmers to change Impacts in rice ecosystems of Southern Sri Lanka. Environmental Management, 65, 787–803.
  7. John D. A. & Babu, G. R. (2021). Lesson from aftermath of green revolution on food system and health. Frontiers in sustainable food systems 5:1-6.
  8. Martono, E. (2009). Evolutionary revolution: implementing and disseminating IPM in Indonesia, pp. 359-381, In: R. Peshin, A.K. Dhawan (eds.). Integrated Pest Management: Dissemination and Impact. Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2000. Doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8990-9-10
  9. McClelland, S. (2002). Indonesia’s integrated pest management in rice: successful integration of policy and education, environmental practice, 4 (4), 191-195.
  10. Siddiqui, A. A., Mirani, Z. A. and Bukhari, S. S. (2012). Impact of farmer field school training on farmers’ knowledge and skills regarding recommended agro-ecological sound IPM practices in selected districts of Sindh. Pakistan Journal of Agriculture, Agricultural Engineering and Veterinary Sciences, 28, 186-198.
  11. Thorburn, C. (2015). The rise and demise of integrated pest management in rice in Indonesia. Insects, 6 (2), 381-408.
  12. van den Berga, H. , Ketelaarb, J. W., Dickea, M., & Fredrix, M. (2020). Is the farmer field school still relevant? Case studies from Malawi and Indonesia. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 92, (1), 1-13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2020.100329
  13. Waddington, H., Snilstveit, B., Hombrados, J., Vojtkova, M., Phillips, D., Davies, P., & Whit, H. (2014) Farmer Field Schools for Improving Farming Practices and Farmer Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Campbell Systematic Reviews. The Campbell Collaboration.
  14. Wijono, S. (2020). Building a new phase of IPM in Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 468, IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1755-1315/468/1/011003
  15. Winarto, Y. T., Walker, S., Ariefiansyah, R., Lisan, I. H., Bestari, M. Y., & Audina, T. (2020). University’s inclusion in providing climate services to farmers: is it possible without agricultural agents and farmer facilitators?. pp 835–852, In: Leal Filho, W., Nagy, G., Borga, M., Chávez Muñoz, P., Magnuszewski, A. (eds.). Climate Change Management: Climate Change, Hazards and Adaptation Options. Springer, Cham., https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37425-9_42