 So, welcome everyone. It's our great pleasure today to have another knowledge dissemination dialogue and today's presentation is by Manuel Caballe from FAO. He'll be talking about exploring an integrated approach to AMR control in food and agriculture, talking some voices from the field, results from a former field school pilot that he's done. Just a little bit of background, hopefully you can still see my slide, background here in terms of logistics. We'd ask that all the participants keep their background microphones on mute if you would like to rename yourself so your organization is shown so we can acknowledge you if you have questions. Those views presented here are those of the speakers and not specifically of FAO. And I know our speaker knows this but for any participants please refrain from advertising any services or commercial products or anything in the chat. And finally, post your questions in the chat and we will go through those and answer them at the presentation after the presentation during the discussion period. So, again acknowledge that this meeting is being recorded. If you do not wish to be heard, don't say anything. The video recording in the PowerPoint will be posted on our FAO YouTube channel for sharing in the future. So with that I'm going to stop sharing my screen and I'm going to pass the microphone over to Manuel if you'd like to share your screen. Please go ahead with the presentation. Thank you very much, Jeff and Emmanuel Cavalli. I'm sharing, I'm doing this presentation on behalf of our big team working on EMR at the FAO on a project that is funded by the Fleming Fund. Are you able to see my screen? Yes, it looks great. Please proceed. I'm sharing the correct screen in for presentation mode. Thank you. So a little bit of background, you can see the title of the presentation has changed a little bit because we are a bit more on the action-oriented side of the fight against EMR. And I'll really run through the presentation with those that outline and looking at how we came to set up for this approach in trying to promote good practices in agriculture and specifically animal production to fight EMR. So a little bit of a background. We work in a project funded by the Fleming Fund and this is a multi-country project that is run by FAO but provides support to member countries. We are present in 12 countries in sub-Saharan Africa and in South and Southeast Asia and we target 12 countries, 7 in Africa and 5 in Asia. When we started around 2016-2017, our main thrust was to support the implementation of the FAO action plan on EMR through the project. Our project was perfectly designed and aligned to the FAO action plan and so we had four objectives similar to the FAO action plans for objectives and our overarching focus was to improve laboratory capacity and diagnosis as well as data and surveillance of EMR. We're also focusing on building capacity to collect drug resistance data in food and agriculture sectors to enable the sharing of drug resistant data locally, regionally and internationally and to collect data on EMR and also to encourage the application of this data to promote the rational use of antimicrobials and the presentation today is really around how the last bullet point has driven us to adopt the farmer fields approach. So specifically under that objective number four, we're focusing on good practices in the food and agriculture sector and based on international instruments such as the Codex and to make sure that these are available too and they're implemented in the target country in the 12 target countries that we had. We were also focused on supporting communities of EMR practice and to initiate behaviour change pilots and application of adult learning methods to promote good practice around antimicrobial use. We also targeted to contribute to the mass of data through peer-reviewed scientific journals and at some point we of course had the usual boxes you have to take on your project and I think in the we had a three-year project and at the beginning of the third year we had this text box I extracted this for framing and this and the question we were asking our superiors in Rome were asking us as a team is are we winning because if you look at the very last row here we were looking at a proportion of targeted key stakeholders reporting change in practices and behaviours related to the use of antimicrobials and what's 75 percent in this in this third year of the project but deep down our hearts we were asking and our minds is this correct are we are we on track are we actually winning are we doing this the right way and in a sense for me I I take it that we were talking to ourselves who are speaking to professionals we are speaking to veterinarians who are speaking amongst ourselves in a language we have very vested pharmaceuticals regulatory regulatory science distribution of drugs but and and thanks to to our leaders at that time the the project leads in Rome we knew we were missing an opportunity there was something we could do right and and we had this opportunity to do it and so we we we had the confidence then to try and shift our approach on objective for from a veterinary biological science driven approach to something else something more social science approach based something more downward looking and something more bottom-up approach and I've I've skipped a lot of slides here maybe a hundred slides to get to this slide because we eventually decided let's go to the countries selected countries that were interested let's go and listen to the farmers let's go and hear the people on the ground what really matters to them what does MR mean to them and with the with the support of our social science team and led by Mac Obonio and I think at this time with working with Professor Dennis Pirongaba we went to the five countries in Africa that's Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe and conducted cup studies that involved a little over 700 farmers and we with we did knowledge attitude and practice studies among farmers their veterinarians and agro agro vets and we had quite interesting results coming out of that for instance AM use and MR patterns were by diverse range of behaviors were affected and influenced by diverse range of behaviors across the production cycle and therefore we realized very quickly that a single target intervention was unlikely to be successful exactly what we had seen in the in the in the three years previous to this we also noted that respondents knowledge of and of and attitudes towards AM use and MR did not predict their AM use and MR relevant practices and so we concluded there that awareness raising alone was not likely to produce the behavior change we were desiring and and and therefore by implication we realized MR needed interventions and approaches that can target practices across different production variable chains and also expanded beyond just raising awareness so we started the project with if we tell them the best practices these are the standards don't do this do that process meet this way to safeguard a life and keep keep the quality and that wasn't going going to work really and and so we moved forward and and and explored and thanks again to our social science team we explored what the best approach would be to try and change behaviors and we eventually chose the farmer field school approach and and with this approach our main aim our high level target was to try and and and generate data for action around MR AM use and AM residues to inform policy and and and other action on MR that take a one health approach um we're quite aware that lack of high quality data on MR AMU and AMC are a major barrier to effective and informed decision making and this is much bigger than just behaviors investments into MR from from the grassroots up to the global level really requires a reliable data and we noted that we we struggle to have and demonstrate those reliable data so I'll take a step back a little bit and assuming that others that will listen to this may not really be aware of what we are speaking about so the farmer field school what is it and this is is an initiative that was crafted by FL a little over 30 years ago and it's called a school without wars and and at this school we have 15 to 25 up to 30 farmers with a common interest learning best ways of production through observation and experimentation and and there is a facilitator who guides the discussion and and and the group meets at least once a week or twice a week or or twice a month depending on the production cycle they are working in so it's quite flexible in that sense the length of the field school is usually around a full production cycle and and in poetry when we are doing layers it runs for around six months at least we rent some for that long and when you look at broilers it will run for around one cycle run for around six to eight weeks there are a few steps in the implementation of the field school so a typical field school session is around three to five hours and it involves conducting having a roll call and having a roll call and conducting an ecosystem and ecosystem process coder ESSA and there are group dynamics involved so everyone is expected to participate once in a while based on the group's demand we we we bring special topics to to a session where they learn about a specific technical even including social and other issues and then there's a review of the day's work and and the plan for the next session just to be clear an ESSA is an agroecological ecosystem analysis and specifically when we do for instance the broiler production it's it's renamed a BESA so a broiler ecosystem analysis a few critical characteristics of a field school is that we we we emphasize the use of non-formal adult learning which is experimentation and hands-on on the in the field learning we also focus on a farmer driven learning experience with co-creation as as one of the key drivers of the solutions to to the presented problems we have a problem solving and the local knowledge embracing approach so every answer is correct and of course the facilitator is there to in a way sense check the approaches but not to hand not about a top-down handing of solutions approach and sometimes we have in-depth understanding of the ecology and the local constraints and and the facilitator just facilitates and not teachers as as I have said so we are also able to run experiments depending on the demand or also the focus of of the intervention and in this case for instance we in the picture as you can see farmers have their own approaches and and they work as a community they work as a team together at a host farm and the host farm is where one of the farmers hosts the school and the other farmers visit the school and they and they grow in this case the cycle of product who are looking at layers in this case this is of course guided by by by facilitator so when we set up the field schools from the cap we had we had we had five countries of course one country in this case Tanzania found the approach in layers of broilers not feasible at the time so we took a different approach and worked with with with the maasai the the the pastoralists but in the four countries where we actually applied the the farmer field schools we implemented 25 field schools and we had about 750 poultry farmers participate the the farmer field school learning curriculums were informed by the the cap studies and several ffs especially under the broiler lasted multiple cycles and we are proud to say for two years now cycles some of the field schools are still are still running we also affirmed an evaluation around the layer field schools and these were conducted in in in Dana and in Kenya and the idea here was to do a cross-sectional survey comparing farmer field school graduates with a sample of non-farmer field school graduates and we had about 154 farmers participate in the evaluation this evaluation ran for a course of six months and and so we were trying to check the adherence of of graduates to to practices that they had learned during the the cycles of of their practice when farmer field schools were running we know that most of the practices that were recommended were around biosecurity and we're trying to compare the business as usual among the the non-graduates to the graduates who would have adopted some of these and some of the early findings we had there was that around 67 percent of the field school graduates reported that they did not use antimicrobials for any other purpose except for treatment and and and this compared to only 15 percent of non-field school farmers that that that reported that and also we noted that farmer field school graduates were significantly more likely to keep more likely to keep regular farm records compared to to non-field school graduates we have a publication on this and I think there are links at the end of the presentation that you can you can you can look at and so over the eight months of evaluation 65 farmer field school graduates and 35 non-graduates were completed the evaluation the eight months period and there were monthly visits to to the farms and I think we also went beyond just the farms to traders and also input suppliers and in that so just a few slides to really summarize some of the findings that we got here is that we saw a significant difference between farmer field school and non-farm afield school participants in terms of frequencies of diseases and disease symptoms reported in chickens and in chicks and in growers and then from the 85 medicines that were used farmer field schools obtained prescription farmer field school graduates obtained prescriptions around 75 time percent compared to non-field school graduates that that that were only 18 percent that that got a prescription for for medication and also from the 115 reported disease episodes or incidences and animal health professional was sorted 82 times by the field school facilitators which was about 65 percent of the times and only 22 times for non-field school participants at this point and we are being very careful and and I think my my social science colleagues would would would would back this up during discussion we are being careful not to think this is a win for farmer field school but this demonstrates potential update uptake of the good practices that that that that we need to promote and remember when I started we spoke of speaking to ourselves but here we see an opportunity that we we are able to to actually promote good practices among those farmers that that take part in the in the field school we've also looked at the economics of production and through the field schools and there are interesting findings here and these are also early findings and and that is an FFS participants spent significantly less on antibiotics across the evaluation period that eight months and also FFS graduates spent less money compared to a sample of farmers who are not enrolled in the farmer field schools these findings are quite early and I think the sample size is very small I know they are the economics experts in the meeting today and we can have a discussion around here and so we we are we are aware that this specific expenditure bit was not significantly was not the difference was not significant and statistically significant in this in this particular case but we think we have we are able to frame a case here around the economics of animal production and and in the in the forecast I'm going to mention what we plan to do so I think in a nutshell we we we know based on the quantitative and qualitative surveys that we conducted we know that through the farmer field school we are able to decrease antimicrobial use on the farm we are able to increase investment and and adherence to biosecurity and we are able to increase interactions with animal health professionals and in those 50 slides I skipped before these are some of the things that we found through the cap as being priority areas for for potential intervention we also put in a component a component of behavior science and in our in our interventions besides of course the biological sciences related to AMR and AM use and and what we are what we are what we are able to to to find here around behavior science is that farmers make decisions of course this is none bounded within their enablers and barriers so such as the economics the veterinary service ability to access those the influence of the neighbors and family and and and that these enablers and barriers influence their decisions more than the sense of the good practices so to a farmer AMR doesn't mean much production means means much more and also the decisions with the potential to impact AM use and AMR are made across the entire production chain so it's not a one-off decision and and I think situations like high mortalities are likely to influence the decision of a farmer to use antimicrobials more than the logic and the knowledge that antimicrobial use without a prescription and it is not recommended and also that access to services and attitudes and or or sufficiency of knowledge do not necessarily translate into adherence to to practices a good example of a behavior intervention was an intervention we made for for promoting the use of footpaths because again during the cup studies we realized most farmers who knew what a footpath was was used was was intended and actually had footpaths on their farms the majority of them didn't actually use them and when you ask them why they didn't use them I think generally the perception was that they were not effective and also one of the critical outcomes specifically in Ghana that came out was that use of footpath was expensive because disinfectant was quite expensive and when the behavior team and the social science team prodded further we realized that things like for instance when a dip is sold or when a when a disinfectant is sold there's no measuring device sold with a disinfectant and so the farmers would use sense the poor water in the footpath and pour as much disinfectant as they thought would be sufficient to be effective and and and that apparently was a barrier for them to use the footpaths and and and one of the outcomes of this behavior in intervention and insight was that in Ghana for instance we developed a local solution to measuring the amount of disinfectant to put in a footpath and the outcome there was that the farmers realized the container of disinfectant that would last a month or less was able to last three to four months and so over two production cycles or in layer in the case of layers over a full production cycle of a year they would use only two three containers where they used to use one container every month and so that was one of the outcomes that that enabled farmers to adhere to to show adherence among field school participants who buy security measure in this case they use and all the footpath and I'll use a few minutes to wrap up and this knowing I've used quite substantial time what is the way forward and and so with with with what I've described before and there's a bit more detail that we can get from from our team here we see potential in the field school as as a source as a data generating platform also as as a site for for promoting good behaviors but also for sustainable for sustainable behavior change here we see also an opportunity to scale this approach because it's a flexible approach it has got local framing so we are not asking the same thing to be done across different regions within a country and across countries we are aiming to have common targets with locally framed interventions around the farmer field school we also I believe this has a very strong geographical adaptability it including the respect of customs and local traditions and beliefs and also we believe we are likely to have a systematic change and using this approach also we feel we are able to to generate sufficient data for action around antimicrobial use around the quality of products and so substandard falsified antimicrobials we are able to also have social science interventions behavior science interventions and also promote good husband practices we are careful going forward in framing our interventions because we need to pair data as perfectly as possible and this has been quite a challenge where we would like to pair all these data points from antimicrobial resistance, economics, behaviors, behavior interventions and economics so that we are able to try and see correlations through a production cycle I'm sure you're all aware that this is not an easy thing to do but our team again on the ground is really made a good effort to try and design a study and an approach that that will be able to provide as best an outcome as possible we we also think that I'm going to skip a few slides yeah we also we also think that we are able to and if you look down and to to the left here we also think that with with the pilots that we are planning to to run learning from these results we are able to scale this through other initiatives and I think there is an initiative to reduce the need of antimicrobials and in agri-food systems this is an FAO initiative that that seems to target around a hundred countries and we we think this approach could be useful in in such a mammoth intervention and initiative because of its flexibility and and we are also seeing uptake of this approach by other partners outside FAO in Africa specifically because I think we we see that it is very very flexible and close cross cutting and finally I think we are able to support now the implementation of FAO's strategy on AMR or approach as you can see where there is the number two that that relates to to to mainly the behavioral and the social science approach the farmer field school approach and we are able to frame this around awareness, engagement, surveillance and research and promoting the good practices and also are promoting responsible use. I'll end my presentation with an acknowledgement of a lot of technical input of course I acknowledge Marco Calder's work because he's our boots on the ground he takes the heat when we do this work he bears the brunt and the stress and and he has to think through a lot of framing we are grateful to Dennis Piarungaba who helped us with the with with the framing the science approach to this the veterinary approach the animal health approach to the pilots that we ran. Annika is responsible for the behavior science and we worked with Courtney Price as well in the framing of this at the beginning. Our projects have gone through several technical colleagues from Sarah to Marcus and Junshan and of course the CBOs who are the budget holders and their team has been very supportive and to provide funding to our work. I'd like to acknowledge of course the role of Jeff in leading the science behind and this work Susan Eckford, Antonio and Alejandro who've been very very very supportive in framing our work and also our Flaming Fund team which is we have over 30 active staff working with us to run these pilots in the countries and regions but we without the farmers the governments the veterinarians and other colleagues we are running into the thousands of participants to deliver this this work and also the reference centers in the UK and in Denmark that have been very supportive of our work and of course the funding agency which is the UK Flaming Fund. I have a slide here highlighting around seven of the publications we've made arising from this work and feel free to access those. I believe the slides will be shared and I'll end with that and maybe hand back to Jeff to open for a discussion. Thank you. Awesome, I want to hear about there and thank you so much Manuel. I really like this in particular by probably by the personal experience early on in my career in relation to educational awareness, raising and behavioral change. I found it my approaches on the throw it at the wall and see what sticks theory and that's really not the case when you talk about behavior change it's actually underpinned by science social science and behavior science that they're into these theories and these practices and we can predict what will and then it's a great this is the real one-help approach I think to integrate behavioral sciences into understanding why people make those decisions and what the models and mix changes and whether it involves economics or other the social factors so I think this is a real good example of how things can happen. We've got a couple of questions and I have a couple of questions. I'll go along the line first. In your economic assessment there gender looked like it showed up as a factor. Now which gender had the more economic benefit and why do you think that might be with your microphone on? With my microphone on? Yes, of course. Yes, Jeff. Gender had a significant effect here. No, Jeff. Or did I not think that right? No, no, no. Gender had an effect on the cost per egg. But not on the drug cost so you got that right. I can get support from Mark here but my understanding and the framing here is that among yes Mark I think we found more benefit among the female gender here than the male gender. Mark would you like to step in? Thank you. Yeah, that is correct. So most of our female participants the poultry was their primary I can turn them over to you. Was their primary income generating activity? So even when we were looking at the uptake of practices from the farmer field school we found greater adherence among females compared to males because like I said in some of the our male participants you know the keeping of the layers was something that they were doing that was combined with say a wage labor job in Nairobi or around Nairobi. So we found that the the woman farmers are much more I think focused on kind of the farm and implementing the practices on the farm. So thanks over to Emmanuel or Jeff. Yeah and Jeff that's a very good question because in framing gender specific interventions and it's good you ask that because gender is one of our core it wasn't a core target when we're doing the pilots but is a core going forward. It's more impactful when and Mark can can also support me here is we see a lot of those women are also coming from female-headed households. So it's not only that this production is their primary source of income it's actually a very important area of livelihood. So in essence by having these interventions we are going beyond just AMR and good practices to actually supporting livelihoods actual livelihoods and what we are trying to do now and I hope in the next couple of years we are able to present this is that we want to capture all these relevant data points you know how do we actually impact livelihoods how do we actually impact economies of households and communities rather before we get to the macro a macro level of nations and international and so that's a very good question Jeff. Again to re-emphasize these are very small sample sizes and some of these effects we are seeing might require to be measured across bigger bigger samples and we are looking at a few thousand samples in our next pilots. Yeah thank you. Thank you and if you see them show up on small sample sizes maybe the effects is large maybe the effects are large. We'll say Mark do you have a comment? Yeah I just want to add one additional aspect to this and that and this is from our qualitative work but the the females in general in most of the areas we work are also responsible more responsible for food safety concerns. So when we when we talk to them about AMR and its relation to food safety they often feel a more sense of responsibility to you know make products that are that are antibiotic you know residue free. Of course male farmers also are concerned about this but it seems like the how integrated females are in the kind of distribution of food taking care of the home essentially. Maybe also makes them a bit more bit more likely to adopt some of these practices as you know they're part of that chain of distribution of food. Yeah thanks back to you Jeff. Great thanks I really appreciate that we get a tooth for here right. The boat that you're joining in is an anuosic lab and work and it's nice to have both the biological and social science expertise on the line. A question from the chat again regarding to the the analysis and how did you recruit or select participants and the controls to participate in that study. And that's a big question Jeff our attempt to answer this and and and rightly writing on what you said our social scientist is in the is in the meeting and is and is going to give a bit a bit more detail. I think we had and you know this is multi-layered research we had a bit more purposeful sampling in this case because for the CAHPS studies of course we had target we had target regions where we wanted to go but those target regions were already determined by our government counterparts in the countries where we're going and then when we went in those local areas we ride on the strength of influencers and and and the veterinary delivery systems and the local leadership systems in those in those places to to bring to us the willing the willing farmers and then of course from that pool that we that we get we are able to select and sample and each country varies their approach varies in each country but also very important I think one of the key considerations before Mac comes in that we had years we had to be careful in selecting the control group because we had we had already noted that there was possibility for a spillover effect when farmers participate in interventions we saw a very strong uptake of the of the learnings in the in the local community so we had to frame the control group away from the areas where we had the intervention just to ensure that there's no confounder where they are taking up learnings even if they're not participants and so besides that I think we're very purposeful purposeful in in the rest of it and Mac please you you can come in with a little more detail there yeah thanks yeah so in thanks Emmanuel so in in Kenya like Emmanuel said it differed between Kenya and Ghana for these pilot studies so for example in Kenya we didn't have any records on on layer farmers in the community so we just did a transect for the CAP study the transect got the names of all of the farmers who are keeping layers in the community and use that to generate a random sample for the CAP but when it Ghana had more records so we were able to use that but importantly for the farmer field school you know it's it's not it's something that there's potentially a bias in that because it's our selection of farmer field school participants we first focused on those individuals who we had CAP information on because part of the the CAP study we were telling them we're getting this information so we can develop these interventions to help you in your production to help you on your farm so part of it is given responsibility going back to the people that gave us data in the first place to say okay we've come up with this intervention are you now interested in participating in the intervention and so we started off with that until we until we hit the we had three farmer field schools in in one location in one community in Kenya and we got up to around 60 65 people in total who wanted to go to the farmer field school out of I think in a a CAP study total of 115 and then with the with the control yeah so we attempted to identify those farmers who who were geographically isolated if you will from the areas where we're holding the farmer field schools you know but again you know we we recognize that there could be bias because some of the these individuals were in the original CAP study and they just said I I don't have time to do the the farmer field school and so maybe at the beginning they didn't value improving you know biosecurity practices or something like that so they said no to the farmer field school so right there we're almost biasing ourselves in the sense of people are self-selecting into into this um intervention that they want to uptake so yeah so that's what like Emmanuel said once we expand we'll be able to get a bit more sophisticated sampling frame to really try to tease out some of the effects of these of these schools on the farm thanks back to Jeff great thank you mark for joining in there um I've got one more question before we close uh and it's again related to the farmer field schools and not the participants but the host or the the farmer champions again those people are going to have to want to participate the two questions are um I see there's a potential risk here to buy a whole bunch of other 30 farmers to your free of your farm I mean we promote bias maturity and keeping people off your farm right so how did you mitigate that risk and did you compensate the the I don't know if those those people were actually the facilitators but the the host farmers to compensate them for any potential risk and they were they were exposing themselves to yeah and and again I am sure mark would would want to come in on on this and that is true the risk is actually on two sides the risk is on our side because you know when we do when we use a um a host farm we invest resources so the experiment has to be run around investing and again in different countries depending in some countries actually I think Ghana were using flocks that belong to the farmer and I think that is why your question is is is is relatively very um very potent from the from the host farmer side but in others like Kenya and Zambia Zimbabwe we actually purchased the chicks and then purchased them the other products like feed and and and all so the risk on our side is the host farmer agrees and signs to host the school and if they change their mind maybe because they have a difference with one of the participants in the field that is completely out of our control so that's a risk where the farmer decides in the middle of an intervention I'm no longer interested in doing this unfortunately we didn't face that situation and and I think it's also kudos to the social science aspect of this intervention is that we are able to maintain the momentum among the participants and the cohesion and among the participants but directly to the benefit of the host farm and also the risk um and remember these these farmer groups are told to work as a community so the farmers are coming to the host farm to support the host but the host is also hosting as as a leadership pro in the community so we're quite deliberate to choose a reliable farmer um a leading farmer and also farmers that were willing themselves they offered themselves to host what we are what we have thought about mitigating that in some countries is actually to use facilities like learning local learning institutions or or picking picking up facilities that are out of use so that belong to the community in general rather than to an individual but but we are not we are not likely to win very very much in this sense as the direct benefit for the host farmers in some cases as we upgrade some biosecurity measures so for instance we we repair the deep the deep tank we make a few changes to the facility and that benefit remains with them um on the biosecurity front you're right in some cases the the host farmer is both at risk and is also a risk because they insist on continuing their production of other things and rightly so it's their house it's their plant so we find in some cases where we have um free-ranging chickens we have goats and and other production including chickens actually there were some farms where there were chickens pigs and rabbits in production while there was this there was this demonstration going on and and and I think we we we deeply thought about that how do we factor in biosecurity how do we prevent transmission and having confounders in certain demonstrations compared to others and it will be useful to also actually get advice um on some of these pertinent issues but I think it's an excellent question um the direct benefit also for the for the host farmers by default they are forced to take up some of these practices because in a sense they are influenced indirectly to to to to apply some of these good practices and them themselves being the the host farmers and Mack and I think you can add a bit more detail to that things yeah I mean you've covered everything mostly everything I was going to say I would just like to add we also um strive to provide um PPE for all the um participants so you know it's a part of the obviously the process of learning um how to integrate proper biosecurity onto your own farm um but we make sure that before the farmers are getting onto the farm so for example Kenya everybody's washing their hands everybody's put put everybody's been given gumboots and a coat um and so they're going through the process even before getting on the farm of disinfection um and so yeah we try to really emphasize because it's already a big emphasis in the farmer field school the importance of biosecurity and that kind of in a way allows us you know it's learning by doing so every time you go to the farm here the processes that you have to take um and the only thing um maybe additional to add would be um that the farmer field school process itself there's a lot of work that goes in before the farmer field school even um even begins and um a lot of that is having these facilitators who are who go through a three week training going into the community and identifying potential host farmers um and then really explaining what are the responsibilities um as a host farmer you know um in what are the benefits what are some of the drawbacks um and so as Emmanuel said we've been pretty lucky so in all of our farmer field schools we haven't had issues with a host farmer um dropping out yet so thanks back to you Jeff. That's good um I think we can see on there this call but I think we're gonna have to wrap it up here uh so I'm gonna take this time to thank Emmanuel and Mark too for joining in on any discussion we really appreciate that and those who joined I think I have a slide to share with you about the future presentations that we have oops um right here so yeah that's the introductory slide that's funny that it's uh oh let's see if it'll get back sorry about that a quick recap of everything that Emmanuel said here uh until we get right here all right uh the next uh knowledge dissemination dialogue will be on November night noted change in time uh it's at 1230 Central European time uh that time we'll be talking about implementing a monitoring frame UNAMR a small development country a presentation by Sean King of Australia so with that that's the next webinar and be sure to feel uh to complete the feedback questionnaire that's available and if you have any questions make sure you let us know uh on this if you have a desire to present some of your own work so with that thank you very much and have a good day bye