Post on 12-Jan-2023
Juliet C. Bangi, PhD (Res. Leader)Asst. Prof. III
CFCST, Doroluman, Arakan, Cotabato
ETHNOPEDOLOGY: INDIGENOUS SOIL
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OF THE CULTURAL MINORITIES IN COTABATO, PHILIPPINES
(The Case of the Manobo Tribe)
Neyrma N. Cabatac, PhD Director for Research
Southern Christian College. Midsayap, Cotabato
Paulino Agrave, MA Director for Research
Central Mindanao Colleges. Kidapawan City
Team Members
Funding Agency (ies) : CHED
Research Classification : AFNR
Duration (7 mos)
Date started : May 2011
Date completed : Apr. 2012
Financial Support
Total Approved Budget: PhP 155,000
Basic Research Information
Cotabato province is home of diverse
culture and melting pot of the Tri-people
(the Lumads, Moro, and the Christian migrants).
What is the study all about?
The Lumads are dominantly Manobo
(Menuvu) while Moro groups are mostly
Maguindanaons;
All groups depend on farming for
subsistence.
What is the study all about?
Ethnopedology‟s concept :
„ethno‟, from Greek ethos meaning people or
nation; (Ethnology – study of traditional societies)
„pedo', from the word pedon, meaning
ground or soil; (Pedology – study of soil)
„logy', from the word logus, meaning
study or knowledge; (Araújo Jr., et. al, 2006).
the study of local (traditional) knowledge (IKS)
on soil properties and management.
IKS important to lessen agro-ecological
problems (i.e. soil degradation).
Why Indigenous Knowledge System (IKS)?
Farming in Asia was based on sustainable
cropping systems using IKS.
Chemical agriculture replaced the
customary farming into high-yielding
monoculture causing environmental
problems.
Local farming practices are commonly based
on IKS from generation to generation.
Farmers’ practices were found
valid
rational and,
suitable to the local environment
(including the natural resources available) (Sillitoe, 1998; Warren 1991).
Why Indigenous Knowledge System (IKS)?
Assess and/or validate local knowledge (IKS)
with western scientific method in soil fertility
management.
What are the objectives of the study?
To document the IK in soil management of
the dominant ethnic groups (Manobo).
Evaluate farmers’ practices that cause soil
fertility degradation or deterioration, and
Determine local farmers’ practices that are
adopted or introduced in the locality and
modified through time.
What is the expected output of the study?
A written document that recounts the
effectiveness of the practiced IK in soil
management.
Scientific validation /assessment of the IKS practiced by local farmers.
Cultural integrity among ethnic groups
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the conceptual framework of the study.
CULTURAL FARMING PRACTICES
(Indigenous knowledge cropping
systems, soil mgt. other IKS etc.)
Crop production sustainability
(Productivity, ecologically sound, culturally appropriate, and other features of sustainable agriculture)
Indigenous Soil Management Practices
(Ethnopedology) --------------------------------
Handed IKS
- Tribal groupings
- by generation
Assessment /validation of IKS
- Soil physico-chemical property
- Biological factors (plants, insects,
microorganisms etc.)
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the conceptual framework of the study.
LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA
Study
Area
LANAO DEL SUR
BUKIDNON
COTABATO
PROVINCE
MAGUINDANAO
DAVAO DEL SUR
Table 1. Municipalities and barangays dominated by Manobo ethnic groups in Cotabato province selected as study areas and corresponding number of respondents.
Municipality No. of Key Informants Barangays
Arakan 67
Datu Ladayon, Datu Mantangkil, Libertad, Ganatan, Lanao Kuran, Tumanding, Sinayawan, Katindu, San Miguel, KinawayanKabalantian, Maria Caridad, Salasang, Sumalili, Kulaman Valley, Valencia, Binoongan
Pres. Roxas 20 Guinto, Datu Inda, Lamalama, Bato-BatoDatu Sundungan, Salat, Kimahuring, Sarayan
Magpet 20 Pangao-an, Tagbac, Manobo, Manobisa,Datu Celo
Makilala 10 Buenavida, Malasila, Kisante
Carmen 12 Aroman, Bentangan, Kibudtungan, Kimadzil,Liliongan, Cadiis
Libungan 16Sinapangan, Barongis, Malengen, GrebonaKitubod, Montay
How the study was conducted?
Selection of study areas /communities
based from LEIA criteria
Farmers’ demographic
profile and farming practices (soil mgt.)Of key informants
Farm descriptions
and community
resources profile
Indigenous soil
management
description and
technology
innovation
Assess and validate IK in soil
management practices using SWOT analysis,
transect mapping, biophysical
assessment and soil analysis
Secure prior
informed consent
(PIC) from the tribal leaders/datus
How the study was conducted?
LEIA selection criteria for IP:
a) Existence of indigenous peoples (IPs)
and other tri-people with their willingness
to share indigenous knowledge (IK)
b) Accessibility of the area
c) Good peace and order situation
d) Integrity of the culture, and
e) Socio-economic profile of the area
Consultation with different tribal leaders
Demographic
survey
(Tinananon &
Illanon Tribes
Reconnaissance of
the area
Some Biotic indicatorsSoil Analysis
Data gathering procedure
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE STUDY
Manobo tribe is among the 18 identified
ethno-linguistic groups in the Southern
Philippines considered as “Lumad” meaning
“native” or “indigenous”.
It was believed to belong from the original
stock of proto-Philippine or proto-
Austronesian people that came from South
China thousands of years ago.
thought to be earlier than the Ifugao and other
terrace-building people of the Northern Luzon.
“Proto-Manobo” that characterized the stock of
aboriginal non-Negritoid people of Mindanao.
The first Manobo settlers were identified
to live in Northern Mindanao in Camiguin,
Cagayan, and some areas of Bukidnon
and Misamis Oriental .
Rice culture is very important to the Manobo way of
life. more than 60 different names for rice varieties
and all agricultural rituals center around it.
Demographic Profile of the Manobo Respondents
General Information ArakanPres. Roxas Carmen
Magpet & Makilala
Libungan TOTAL %
Municipalities
Gender / SexMale 45 11 10 26 12 104 71.72
Female 12 9 2 4 4 41 28.28
Generation /Age group90s Below 20 10 0 0 0 0 10 6.9
80s
21-25 6 2 0 0 0 8 5.52
26-30 4 1 0 2 1 8 5.52
70s
31-35 10 4 0 1 0 15 10.34
36-40 9 3 0 8 4 24 16.55
60s
41-45 4 4 0 7 1 16 11.03
46-50 3 1 3 10 3 20 13.79
50s
51-55 5 1 5 2 2 15 10.34
56-60 5 2 0 0 4 11 7.59
40s
61-65 4 1 0 0 1 6 4.14
66-70 3 1 3 0 0 7 4.83
30s 71-75 2 0 0 0 0 2 1.38
20s >76 -98 2 0 1 0 0 3 2.07
700 - 800 m (±)
Figure 16. Transect of the selected farmland of the Manobo Kulamanon tribe in Sitio Sangjay, Kabalantian , Arakan, Cotabato Province (06/05/2011).
Soil texture
clay loam clay and clay loam
Clay and clay loam
Clay and clay loam
Water Source
Rainfall & shallow well
Rainfall Rainfall Rainfall and creeks
Land use Farmland, village, grazing
Farmland, village, grazing
Farmland, village, grazing
Farmland, mini- forest and grazing
Crops and other Vegeta-tion (including forages)
Banana, Gabi, cassava, other vegetables, rubber, mango, lanzones, coconut, bamboo, cogon and (including bamboo)
Corn, Banana, Gabi, cassava and vegetables Rubber, mango, other shrubs (durantha), cogon and other grasses for grazing
Corn, upland rice, vegetables, cassava, rubber, durian, and other hardwood trees, cogon, other grasses for grazing
Corn and upland rice, rubber, durian and other hardwood trees, Johnson grass”, cogon and other grasses for grazing
Post-harvest storage
Elevated storage house
(indigenous method)
Farmers’ Practice (hanged in the
kitchen and placed in big labban)
Farmers’ practice (hanged in the
kitchen and placed in big labban)
Farmers’ practice
Problems Erosion, pests and diseases, (including rodents)
Erosion,pests and diseases
Erosion, pests and diseases
Pests and diseases
Opportuni-ties
Water, rainfed farming, market
Rainfed farming, market, health care
Rainfed farming, market, fuel, school, and healthcare
Timber, pasture, fuel Watershed area
Water Source Rainfall Rainfall
Land use Farmland Farmland
Crops and
other Vegeta-
tion
Native corn, upland rice, gabi, cassava,
other vegetables, banana
Native corn, upland rice,
gabi, cassava and
vegetables
Problems Erosion, pests and diseases, (including
rodents)
Erosion, pests and diseases
(including rodents)
Opportunities Soil fertility, Water, Rainfed farming,
organically produced crops
Water, Rainfed farming,
soil fertility and organically
produced crops
Present Farming Practices of the Manobo tribe
Arakan Pres. Roxas Carmen Magpet Makilala
Libungan Total %
MunicipalitiesModern & highly
mechanized
Yes 7 0 9 23 15 54 39.71No 56 20 3 2 1 82 60.29
Dependent on chemical inputs
(fertilizers & pesticides)
Yes 11 1 9 25 10 56 39.72No 52 19 3 5 6 85 60.28
Monocropping system
Yes 26 8 12 26 12 84 61.76No 31 12 0 4 5 52 38.24
Integrated farming
Yes 49 14 6 24 13 106 75.18No 15 6 6 1 7 35 24.82
Multiple cropping
Yes 42 7 6 26 9 90 66.67No 21 13 6 2 6 45 33.33
Organic farming
Yes 48 7 7 16 11 89 67.42No 10 13 5 10 5 43 32.58
Green manuring
Yes 11 1 0 23 9 44 35.20No 52 19 0 5 5 81 64.80
Commercial animal raising
Yes 11 0 0 23 12 46 35.66No 52 20 0 7 4 83 64.34
Increased net production in
farming practicesYes 20 3 7 21 6 57 39.31No 47 17 5 9 10 88 60.69
Table 4. Farm assessment of the Manobo tribes (key informants) in the selected
study sites in Cotabato Province (N=145).
Perception of the Manobo tribe on IKS
Arakan Pres. Roxas Carmen Magpet &
Makilala
Libungan Total %
Municipalities
Agric'l practices affected by modern (western) culture
Yes 67 16 9 19 13 124 85.52No 0 4 3 11 3 21 14.48
Effect of modern culture in agri-practices spec. soil mgt.
Very good 5 1 1 5 3 15 12.10Good 10 2 1 21 9 43 34.68
Not good 52 13 10 4 4 83 66.94
Observed changes in traditionYes 65 14 8 28 12 127 87.59No 2 6 4 2 4 18 12.41
Changes observed in traditionAgricultural practices- land preparation 63 14 8 25 12 122 96.06- soil fert. mgt. 66 8 7 27 11 119 93.70- soil cultivation 65 12 8 25 10 120 94.49- crop protection 65 3 5 22 8 103 81.10- harvesting & storage 30 11 5 24 9 79 62.20Use of farm tools 62 9 5 26 10 112 88.19Use of farm equipment 61 8 2 26 8 105 82.68Use of costumes (ethnic dress) 5 8 3 25 9 50 39.37Art & skills 61 6 0 23 2 92 72.44Farming rituals 63 9 4 25 9 110 86.61
Use IKS in farmingYes 65 17 11 24 12 129 88.97No 2 3 1 6 4 16 11.03
Table 6. Perception of the Manobo tribe and sub-tribes (key informants) on the use of
indigenous knowledge (IK) in farming practices in the selected study sites in
the Cotabato Province (N=145). .
Soil fertility evaluation using Indigenous knowledge system
Arakan Pres. Roxas Carmen Magpet & Makilala
Libungan Total %
Municipalities
Fertile soil indicators- black color 63 10 8 23 13 117 80.69- pulverized soil 55 3 0 21 2 81 55.86- not sticky soil or clayey 63 3 2 16 9 93 64.14- presence of earthworms 63 2 0 10 5 80 55.17- presence of many weeds
(specifically broadleaves) 58 1 0 2 1 62 42.76- presence of bolo (bamboo) 10 0 0 0 0 10 6.90- presence of lauan tree (big trees) 56 2 0 0 0 58 40.00- presence of badjang 40 3 0 0 0 43 29.66- presence of anonang tree 55 1 0 0 0 56 38.62- presence of bonowang 10 0 0 0 0 10 6.90- presence of mites, ants and etc. 42 0 0 0 0 42 28.97- color of crop grown (green ) 0 5 3 23 8 39 26.90- crop yield 32 2 0 17 4 55 37.93
Low / Poor soil fertility indicators
- loose stone 15 0 0 0 4 19 13.10- presence of Almasiga tree 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.69- presence of short trees (shrubs) 55 0 0 0 0 55 37.93- presence of cogon weeds 53 3 0 12 5 73 50.34- presence of worst hard weeds 3 7 0 0 0 10 6.90
( wayan, katungon-tungon & anatong)
- red color soil 0 5 5 21 3 34 23.45- clayey soil 0 2 8 13 0 23 15.86- poor growth of crops and seed germ. 0 3 2 12 0 17 11.72
Employ soil fert. mgttechnique using IK
Yes 60 7 10 21 15 113 77.93No 5 13 3 9 2 32 22.07
Table 7. Biophysical assessment of the Manobo tribe (key informants) in soil fertility
evaluation using indigenous knowledge (IK) in the selected study sites in the Cotabato Province (N=145). .
Soil improvement practices employed using IKS
Leave area for 1-2 yrs (fallow period) 67 3 3 12 4 89 78.76
Leave the area until trees grow 43 1 0 1 0 45 39.82
Plant permanent crops (permaculture) 44 0 2 0 0 46 40.71
Plant leguminous crops (intercropping) 54 6 3 5 4 72 63.72
Use traditional way of farming 43 4 0 0 2 49 43.36- panubad-tubad / ritual
Staggard planting (relay cropping) 7 0 0 4 0 11 9.73
No burning of weeds or decayed leaves 1 2 0 3 5 11 9.73
Use organic fert. (animal manure etc) 19 3 0 15 7 44 38.94
Crop rotation 0 1 2 3 0 6 5.31
Multiple cropping/diversified 0 2 1 0 0 3 2.65
There is eco problem in farming
system using IK.
Yes 13 7 8 22 5 55 48.67
No 52 13 4 8 11 88 77.88
Suggestions to resolve the agro
ecol problems using IKS
Use of IK system in farming 44 0 0 0 3 47 41.59
Partner with other agency (ecol related) 60 0 0 1 0 61 53.98
Tree planting (refo) & agroforestry 53 7 3 0 2 65 57.52
Stop cutting of trees 54 3 0 5 3 65 57.52
Consultation with the community 1 0 1 0 2 4 3.54
Use of organic fertilizers (manure) 0 3 2 8 6 19 16.81
Use of natural pesticides 0 1 1 0 7 9 7.96
Handweeding /manual labor 0 0 0 3 3 6 5.31
Planting calendar 0 0 0 4 0 4 3.54- don’t plant during May
no cultivation of soil (plowing etc) 0 0 0 5 0 5 4.42
no burning of weeds 0 11 2 2 15 13.27
fallow period (leave the farm for 1 yr) 17 2 2 0 3 24 21.24
use panubad-tubad /ritual 6 0 0 5 0 11 9.73
Govt. support 0 0 3 0 4 7 6.19
Other concern in using IK in
present farming
Non-practice of new generation w ith IK 57 4 0 0 0 61 53.98
Geneology of culture be documented 54 0 0 0 0 54 47.79
Other agency concern should 49 2 0 0 0 51 45.13
participate In the documentation
Non- Practice of panubad-tubad 55 3 0 3 0 61 53.98
Sharing of knowledge by the elders to the 57 0 0 4 0 61 53.98
community leaders /chieftains
Meet the different datu & share IKS 46 3 0 0 0 49 43.36
All IP constituents shld participate in IKS 56 0 0 6 0 62 54.87
Restore Bayanihan values 15 2 0 0 1 18 15.93
Linking IKS w/ modern farming 0 1 0 4 4 9 7.96
Planting of white corn 15 0 0 0 1 16 14.16
Less expenses in IKS 0 3 0 0 3 6 5.31
Planting of different crops for consumption 8 0 9 5 5 27 23.89
Restore "Kompak" method of farming 15 3 0 3 3 24 21.24
IkS base on constellation (sun & moon 12 2 2 1 0 17 15.04
movement)
Right attitude/positive outlook 23 0 0 3 0 26 23.01
Social and Environmental Impact
Integrity of cultural heritage
Empowerment of IPs and other tribal
groups for sustainable crop production
Agro-ecological conscious community
“In the transmission of human culture,people always attempt to replicate, to passon to the next generation the skills andvalues of the parents, but the attemptalways fails because cultural transmission isgeared to learning, not DNA”.
Gregory Bateson (1904 - 1980)
British-born U.S. anthropologist.