Post on 24-Jan-2023
Integrating and Mobilizing Rice Knowledge to Improve and Stabilize Crop Productivity to Achieve Household Food
Security in Diverse and Less Favorable Rainfed Areas of Asia
(IRRI Ref. No.: DPPC2003‐42)
Technical Assistance Completion Report
submitted to the
Asian Development Bank (ADB)
March 2008
Contact:
Dr. Michael T. Jackson
Director for Program Planning and Communications (DPPC) Telephone: +63 (2) 580‐5600 ext. 2747 or 2513; Direct: +63 (2) 580‐5621; Fax: +63 (2) 812‐7689 or 580‐5699
E‐mail address: dppc‐irri@cgiar.org Mailing address: DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines Courier address: 10th Floor, Suite 1009, Security Bank Center, 6776 Ayala Avenue, Makati City 1226
Telephone: +63 (2) 891‐1236, 891‐1303
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 I. INTRODUCTION 5
A. The Project 5 B. Background 5 C. Objectives and Expected Outputs 6 D. Approach 7 E. Results 9 F. Structure of this Report 11
II. PROJECT RESULTS OF OUTPUTS BY WORKING GROUP 12
A. Working Group 1 for drought‐prone lowlands 12 1. Rapur, India 12 2. Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand 25
B. Working Group 2 for submergence‐prone lowlands 35 1. Faizabad, India 35 2. Rangpur, Bangladesh 48
C. Working Group 3 for salt‐affected soils Cuttack, India 61 D. Working Group 4 for sloping rotational uplands Luang Prabang, Laos 76 E. Working Group 5 for drought‐prone plateau uplands Hazaribag, India 89 F. Working Group 6 for intensive upland systems with a long growing season 103
1. Arakan Valley, Philippines 103 2. Lampung, Indonesia 121
APPENDICES 133
1. The CURE Project Logical Framework 133 2. Research Activities Related to the Logical Framework 134 3. Summary of Star Technologies Developed from Project Support 136 4. CURE Scientific Publications, Presentations, and Posters Resulting from Research Supported by the Project
140
1
TA No. 6136‐REG: Eighth Agriculture and Natural Resources Research at International Agricultural Research Centers
Integrating and Mobilizing Rice Knowledge to Improve and Stabilize Crop Productivity to Achieve Household Food Security in Diverse and Less Favorable Rainfed Areas of Asia
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the terminal report for the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project implemented by the Consortium for Unfavorable Rice Environments (CURE) from 2004 to 2007 at nine key sites in six countries of South and Southeast Asia. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) originally supported the Project for three years (2004‐06), during which substantial output was achieved in developing and validating useful technologies to increase rice yields, stabilize production, and intensify and diversify the rice‐based systems of unfavorable environments. At the end of the original Project time period, the ADB approved a one‐year extension (2007) at no additional cost for purposes of validating any technologies in the mature states of development, for scaling up and scaling out the technologies beyond the CURE sites, and for conducting assessments of the impact of these technologies on rural householders’ livelihoods. Project support ended on the 31 Dec. 2007 termination date, although Project funds were committed to the Indonesian key site to complete the ongoing wet‐season activities that began in late 20071. At the conclusion of this Project and the one‐year extension at no additional cost, we can summarize the major findings related in this report:
1. Each working group has developed, or at least is in the final stages of development, at least two technologies, if not more, that can raise rice productivity in the unfavorable ecosystems. These technologies include (a) improved rice varieties, or the identification of suitable traditional varieties, that are better yielding and able to withstand stresses than farmers’ usual cultivars; (b) improved crop management systems that enhance rice’s ability to survive the biotic and abiotic stresses of these ecosystems; (c) improved crop establishment systems using less labor and that provide for better management of weeds and soil nutrients, and that permit system intensification/diversification with nonrice crops; (d) decision tools so farmers can apply the principles of improved crop production to the specific requirements of their farms; and (e) a community organization model for training farmers and monitoring their use of seed health practices to produce a reliable supply of quality seeds, that is, a community seed bank.
2. CURE achieved Project objectives by applying farmer‐participatory methodologies in technology research and development. These methods involved participatory varietal selection (PVS) that allows farmers to evaluate new rice varieties under their own management, and on‐farm experimental trials of new crop management practices and establishment systems, allowing farmers to adapt these new methods to the specific
1 Indonesia is in the southern hemisphere, where the main (wet) cropping season occurs from November to March, in contrast to the other CURE sites north of the equator, where the wet season occurs from about mid‐year to October‐November.
2
localized operational requirements of their farms, that is, social, economic, and marketing factors; labor availability; weather; soils; pests; weeds; etc. In most cases, farmers’ input into the research process has produced technologies that are suited to their production requirements and are found to be more acceptable for scaling out beyond the CURE sites where they were developed.
3. The impact of the new CURE technologies developed under this Project has been documented through quantitative and qualitative studies that show that farmers were expanding cropping area on which these technologies were deployed, they were exchanging seed of new varieties with other farmers, nonparticipating farmers were showing either a keen interest in or were adopting these technologies, and seed scarcity had been alleviated in areas where farmers learned proper seed health management practices.
4. At least five CURE key sites have nominated new lines/varieties to national and, in some cases, state varietal testing and release programs, of which two candidate lines/varieties have been approved for widespread use, whereas the other materials are still undergoing multilocational testing for possible approval and release. In the case of WG2‐Faizabad, more than 20 lines/varieties were undergoing testing through official varietal release programs.
5. The first year (2007) of widespread on‐farm tests of submergence‐tolerant Sub1 introgression lines in India and Bangladesh has confirmed their tolerance of flash‐flood conditions (less than 2 weeks of inundation) with yields comparable with or higher than those of nontolerant varieties. However, further research will be needed into developing lines/varieties for longer‐duration floods, that is, stagnant water, to which the Sub1‐introgressed materials are vulnerable.
6. Useful improved varieties have been developed, or improved lines or traditional varieties have been identified, that in most cases can improve yields by at least 20% over those of farmers’ usual cultivars, which was an objective of this Project. Many of these varieties/lines were developed or identified with tolerance of drought, flooding, or salinity, of biotic stresses such as blast, or they can perform well in low‐yielding upland systems. The extent of the percentage increase for each variety/line for each ecosystem is reported in the specific working group sections of this report. In many cases, yields attained could be 30% higher, or even doubled, compared with those of farmers’ usual cultivars when the new materials are grown with new crop management/establishment methods.
7. Many of the new rice varieties that were identified or developed have an early duration, which allows the crop to avoid late‐season stresses, allows rural households to better allocate labor for the various harvesting tasks, provides rice during the food‐short preharvest months (and also when rice and straw prices are higher), and can give an opportunity for sowing a postrice nonrice crop in the case of late‐season rains or the availability of sufficient residual soil moisture. For these reasons, farmers are interested in early‐maturing varieties and have been eager to adopt them.
8. New nursery management practices have been developed that produce robust seedlings that have better survival and recovery from submergence. These practices involve
3
nutrient management, lower seeding density, and immediate transplanting after uprooting. Nonsubmergence‐tolerant varieties show the highest yield gains, although submergence‐tolerant materials such as Sub1‐introgressed materials make lesser yield gains, probably because of the already‐high levels of submergence tolerance.
9. Crop management packages have been developed that integrate direct‐seeded establishment methods with improved weed control and nutrient management practices that farmers can adapt depending on their prevailing financial circumstances, labor availability, soil, weather conditions, and position of the field on the toposequence. These packages may also allow for earlier crop establishment that allows farmers to harvest rice early so they can intensify/diversify their system with nonrice crops given late‐season moisture levels.
10. CURE has identified suitable nonrice crops that can be integrated into the rice‐based system, which can buffer farmers against losses in the rice crop, provide food during preharvest rice shortages, or else can be sold for income. These include chickpea sowing after rice, pigeonpea intercropping, or mixed cropping of nonrice crops in rice. In upland Laos, a rice‐pigeonpea intercrop allows farmers to harvest sticklac, which is in demand for industrial purposes. In addition, nonrice crops with good salinity tolerance have been identified. Among these are sunflower, which allows farmers to extract oil from the seed for cooking purposes.
11. Farmers have been able to improve rice productivity by using seed health management practices, which involves management of the standing crop, harvesting practices to avoid seed mixtures, seed cleaning methods after harvest, and proper storage methods. A community seed bank model was developed that sustains these practices so farmers can have a reliable supply of pure, good‐quality seed for their communities.
12. At the very least, CURE has made NARES partners aware of farmer participatory research methods by requiring them to use these methods in developing technologies for this Project. In many cases, IRRI’s Social Sciences Division provided backstopping to sites for the conduct of these methods. Nevertheless, the fact that CURE sites were able to develop farmer‐acceptable technologies is evidence of the value of farmer participatory methods for developing technologies for unfavorable environments. With ADB‐RETA 6136 support, CURE was able to provide workshops and formal training to NARES partners to teach concepts, principles, and skills for implementing these practices. Each key site nominated one, if not more, individual to attend the Participatory Approaches to Agricultural Research and Extension training workshop conducted at IRRI headquarters. The CURE Steering Committee highly recommended that key sites send personnel to this training workshop. In addition, the Project supported the upgrading of scientists’ technical skills in advanced plant breeding methods and project management. Some sites were not able to achieve their training goals, however, because workshops on nutrient and weed management, and GIS systems, were unavailable during the term of the Project.
13. The Project one‐year extension at no additional cost was instrumental in validating technologies that were in the final stages of development and, more importantly, for scaling up and scaling out the new technologies beyond CURE’s pilot sites where they
4
were developed. The extension year gave key sites the additional necessary time to disseminate technologies to the kinds of resource‐poor farmers for which they were developed. Key sites were resourceful in developing relationships with local government units, extension, and nongovernmental organizations, which extended the key sites’ reach in disseminating these technologies across regions and to hundreds of farmers who would otherwise not have had access to CURE.
14. Scaling‐out activities also involved the development of printed materials, such as brochures and extension bulletins in local languages, providing information about new varieties and crop and natural resource management practices so the research findings could be provided to farmers and government and NGO agricultural outreach agencies. Futhermore, field days, cross‐site visits, and the use of broadcast media allowed CURE key sites to reach a wide audience of farmers and other stakeholders.
15. CURE’s research supported by the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project has contributed a substantial body of scientific knowledge about the unfavorable environments as evidenced by more than 100 publications in peer‐reviewed journals, posters, and presentations at professional scientific meetings as indicated in Appendix 4.
5
I. INTRODUCTION A. THE PROJECT The Asian Development Bank has provided support through IRRI to the Consortium for Unfavorable Rice Environments (CURE) under RETA 6136 to conduct a research project for Integrating and Mobilizing Rice Knowledge to Improve and Stabilize Crop Productivity to Achieve Household Food Security in Diverse and Less Favorable Rainfed Areas of Asia beginning on 1 Jan. 2004 and ending on 31 Dec. 2006. At CURE’s request, the ADB granted a one‐year extension at no additional cost through 31 Dec. 2007 for the validation of technologies that were in the final stages of development, to conduct activities for scaling out and scaling up validated technologies beyond the CURE sites, and for assessing technology impacts on resource‐poor rural households. The project was implemented in collaboration with the national agricultural research and extension systems (NARES) of Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Laos, the Philippines, and Thailand. The project’s mission was to build upon the knowledge gained, technologies developed, and partnerships already established through the CURE research network to take these technologies and knowledge to farmers by working with them in adapting the technologies to suit their specific needs, conditions, and livelihood strategies. This document describes the conceptual framework on which the project was based, the objectives pursued, and the achieved outputs. We also provide a list of the scientific publications resulting from this work. The project had four outputs. We present the results based on those expectations. We will describe the tangible technological and knowledge products developed for farmers, the capacity built for NARES to conduct and sustain participatory research, and the engagement of nongovernmental organizations, extension, and governmental units as force multipliers to disseminate the products to farmers who will benefit from them beyond the CURE sites. Finally, we will explain the impact of these products on the livelihoods of poor farmers in improving rice production, diversifying and intensifying rainfed rice ecosystems, and enhancing the rural livelihood system. B. BACKGROUND A conceptual framework for research in the unfavorable rice environments The Green Revolution that improved rice productivity across monsoon Asia largely bypassed vast areas that that are not served by major irrigation infrastructure. These rainfed environments support large populations, estimated at 1 billion people, that are disproportionately poor. These areas face drought (about 25 million ha), prolonged and flash floods (more than 16 million ha), and adverse soil and water quality such as alkaline and saline conditions (more than 12 million ha). In addition, some upland systems are characterized by low productivity and environmental deterioration. Farming in all of these areas faces the uncertainties of weather and limited time windows for cropping. Crops produce low yields and
6
are often damaged or fail completely. Farmers either cannot afford or are reluctant to invest in inputs because of risk. A failed crop year has prolonged destabilizing effects on poor households that cannot afford to purchase grain to supplement their staple‐food deficit. One consequence is farmers’ off‐farm migration to seek work to earn income to buy food. Nonsustainable use of land, particularly on steep slopes, without the ability to apply inputs or conserve the soil further degrades the very land resources on which these resource‐poor farmers depend. Achieving widespread impact in rainfed rice‐based systems has been more difficult than in irrigated systems because technologies (varieties as well as crop management practices) have to be tailored for diverse biophysical and socioeconomic conditions, while at the same time ensuring environmental sustainability. In these environments, it is necessary to take into account social, cultural, and economic factors, as well as external policy and market forces, which influence the degree of effectiveness and impact that improved technologies can have on enhancing the livelihoods of poor farm households. Through past research, and the activities conducted through the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project, the Consortium for Unfavorable Rice Environments (CURE) has been able to improve our understanding of the characteristics of the various rainfed environments, the nature and severity of stresses on the rice crop, and the main strategies for overcoming production constraints. This Project has demonstrated that a livelihoods perspective can enhance the relevance and impact of rice research in the unfavorable rainfed environments. The people farming in these environments attempt to meet household food security first, and then improve their livelihoods. Farm households that are able to get an assured rice supply to meet domestic needs are then able to diversify into other on‐farm and nonfarm activities. Therefore, it is important that the introduced rice technologies not only increase and stabilize yields but also reduce time, land, labor, and input resources, thus releasing these resources for other income‐generating activities. C. OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED OUTPUTS The objectives of this project were:
1. To identify opportunities for improving rice productivity in the context of production systems and livelihood strategies of mainly subsistence households;
2. To introduce to farmers promising rice technologies and help them test, adapt, and adopt these technologies to suit local situations;
3. To distill, from site‐specific studies, operational principles and practices that can be shared with other areas experiencing similar problems;
4. To enhance the capacity of NARES for extending knowledge, technologies, and skills to NGOs, local communities, and farmers over larger areas; and
5. To identify constraints to adoption at the farmer, community, institutional, and policy levels and suggest mitigation measures.
The anticipated outputs of the project that were monitored during its duration are as follows:
7
1. Feasible cropping innovations that combine complementary technologies for increasing productivity and reducing risks in rice‐based cropping systems developed and evaluated with farmers; and experiences shared across key sites of the target rainfed environments.
2. Knowledge distilled into decision tools, management principles, and operational guidelines that are extension‐ready; and extrapolation domains of improved production systems identified.
3. Capacity of NARES strengthened for implementing integrative and participatory technology development and dissemination.
4. Farmer acceptability and viability of innovative production systems assessed; and policymakers and development authorities sensitized on supporting sector needs for wider adoption.
D. APPROACH Rather than prescribe prepackaged technologies and blanket recommendations, CURE has made available rice technology options to farmers so they can select those that are best suited to their needs. This approach is more appropriate for the highly diverse conditions in rainfed areas. Through support of the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project, CURE’s researchers have worked closely with extension people, local communities, and farmers to test best‐bet varieties and match crop management practices that fit the rice crop into improved farming systems. The scientists obtained direct feedback to refine the technologies and got better insight into further research needs and gaps. At the same time, the target stakeholders gained more understanding of the basis underlying knowledge‐intensive technologies. CURE wants to ensure that the efforts made, experiences gained, and achievements accomplished at the pilot sites are replicated and extended to larger areas facing similar production challenges. A goal of the Project is to “distill” research findings into easily understandable terms, decision rules, and operational principles for wider dissemination. At the same time, CURE strived to improve the capacity of NARES, NGOs, and local communities to internalize these new ways of conducting research and linking with extension and rural development. This approach required new partnerships and organizational arrangements among institutions that tend to be more accustomed to sectoral and discipline‐based research and development (R&D) approaches. The CURE mechanism is designed to promote such arrangements. As a platform for the research, CURE is a partnership between IRRI and NARES to draw on local scientific expertise and farmers’ indigenous knowledge in the diverse and geographically dispersed rainfed environments. CURE’s strategy involves on‐site farmer participatory research involving scientists from NARES, international research centers, and advanced research institutions using a multidisciplinary approach to technology generation, validation, and dissemination.
8
As the research network for implementing the project, CURE is organized as follows: • The steering committee (SC), comprising high‐ranking NARES representatives from the
10 member countries and the IRRI deputy director general for research, provides overall guidance for the research agenda of the Consortium; approves funding proposals, budgetary allocations, and work plans; reviews progress; and facilitates institutional involvement within participating countries.
• The Consortium Coordinating Unit (CCU) serves as the secretariat for CURE. The CCU facilitated the initiation and establishment of the six Working Groups (WGs) and does coordination for fund raising, administrative support, and facilitating communication among the WGs.
• Each WG is headed by a Working Group leader (WGL), who coordinates the WG activities in the various countries and sites. Each site has a site coordinator, who is a key researcher from the institution hosting the site. The host institution makes available research personnel and facilities, provides logistical support for WG activities, and liaises with other partner institutions working at the site. Team members for each WG may come from NARES, IRRI, and other IARCs, ARIs, and NGOs. During most of the life of the original three‐year term of this Project, IRRI committed its research staff from its two MTP projects dealing with crop improvement (Project 7) and natural resource management (Project 8) for the fragile rainfed environments (Program 3), which provided scientific inputs into the various WGs. When IRRI initiated its new strategic plan in 2007, CURE was situated in the new Program 1, Raising productivity in rainfed environments: attacking the roots of poverty.
The research for the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project was conducted at CURE’s nine key sites in host countries shown in the following table.
Working Group Collaborating Institution 1. Drought‐prone lowlands Indira Gandhi Krishi Viswavidyalaya (IGKV),
Raipur, India Ubon Ratchathani Rice Research Center, Thailand
2. Submergence‐prone lowlands Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology (NDUAT), Faizabad, India Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI), Rangpur (regional station)
3. Salt‐affected lowlands Central Rice Research Institute (CRRI), Cuttack, India
4. Sloping rotational upland systems National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI), Luang Prabang, Laos
5. Drought‐prone uplands Central Rainfed Upland Rice Research Station (CRURRS), Hazaribag, India
6. Intensive upland systems with long growing seasons
University of Southern Mindanao (USM), Arakan Valley, Philippines Indonesian Center for Food Crops Research and Development (ICFORD), Lampung, Indonesia
9
The objectives of the project were achieved through: • Strategic guidance from the national systems through the CURE Steering Committee,
which reviewed WG results and work plans at its annual meetings to ensure that CURE’s activities were in accord with national goals for agricultural research.
• Collaborative planning between IRRI scientists and NARES partners at annual review and planning meetings, some of which were joint WG meetings for researchers to exchange knowledge of similar problems in related ecosystems.
• Cross‐site visits of NARES partners to share knowledge and experiences of technology development in unfavorable rice ecosystems.
• Working Group leaders’ visits to key sites to monitor implementation, to consult on methods and scientific issues, and to assess progress in achieving project outputs.
• Farmers’ participation in identifying suitable germplasm through participatory varietal selection and in on‐farm research to test and validate new crop management practices.
• Training farmers in proper seed health management practices for producing pure, good‐quality seeds, which raises rice productivity.
• Providing training opportunities to NARES partners in conducting farmer participatory research and upgrading technical skills in rice research.
• Engaging NGOs, local government units, and extension for facilitating the scaling out of germplasm and validated technologies as well as identifying policy issues to sustain the gains made by technology adoption.
• The employment of various dissemination methods, such as field days, farmers’ visits to experimental stations or participating farmers’ fields, publicizing the research through local broadcast and print media and publishing extension brochures, guides, and materials.
• Training and follow‐up monitoring of farmers in‐country on management practices for seed health quality.
• Purchasing specified equipment, that is, laptop computers, digital cameras, and motorcycles, to carry out CURE’s research.
• Project monitoring, reporting, and impact assessment by an IRRI postdoctoral fellow hired as assistant network coordinator for the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project and for the one‐year extension at no additional cost.
E. RESULTS The objectives of the project have been substantially attained. First, germplasm, combined with complementary crop management practices, can increase the productivity of rice‐based cropping systems in rainfed ecosystems. This has been achieved by identifying suitable varieties for unfavorable environments through participatory varietal selection (PVS), involving a process of researcher‐managed trials (“mother” trials), and farmer‐managed trials (“baby” trials). In some cases, PVS was the farmers’ first exposure to germplasm developed decades ago or to traditional varieties used in other areas of the country, and the process served to familiarize farmers with new materials in remote areas in countries with a less‐developed seed industry. Furthermore, innovative crop management practices were developed that can
10
optimize the potential output of the new germplasm specific to a stress‐prone environment. Finally, various cropping practices have been developed that allow farmers to intensify and diversify system productivity. These may involve growing rice and nonrice crops at the same time, that is, mixed cropping or intercropping, or employing early rice establishment practices combined with early‐maturing varieties that permit the earlier sowing of nonrice crops that can take advantage of residual soil moisture after the harvest of the wet‐season rice crop. Qualitative impact assessments were conducted at six key sites to evaluate farmer acceptability of these technologies and to provide context to quantitative data derived from the key sites. Assessments were conducted at WG1‐Raipur, WG2‐Rangur, WG3‐Cuttack, WG4‐Luang Prabang, WG5‐Hazaribag, and WG6‐Arakan Valley. Second, the support of ADB‐RETA 6136 has advanced our understanding of rainfed rice ecosystems, and, in the case of drought‐prone lowlands, even required a rethinking of management strategies that were largely based on favorable irrigated systems found to be inappropriate for marginal environments. Based on the key sites’ results, extension materials were developed during the Project duration, or were being developed by the end of the one‐year extension at no additional cost. These sorts of materials are made possible from farmer participatory research methods that generate feedback from farmers so the research design can be modified according to their criteria and technologies can be developed that are suitable for their specific ecosystem’s requirements. In addition, CURE is producing three publications that cover scientific research for unfavorable environments. These include the proceedings of papers presented at a 2005 crop improvement workshop at Lombok Island, Indonesia, and a 2006 crop and natural resource management workshop at Dhaka, Bangladesh. The third publication is a technical bulletin on qualitative assessments of the impact of technologies developed under this Project at five key sites. These publications are forthcoming in 2008. Third, CURE’s close collaborative process between IRRI scientists and NARES builds the capacity of the latter’s scientists to conduct integrative and participatory technology development. Scientists share research protocols, knowledge, and methods with NARES colleagues that raise their awareness, develop skills, and necessarily require them to generate results, all of which is conducive to building their capacity for doing farmer participatory, integrative work. This has been accomplished through exchanges of information formally at the annual Steering Committee meeting and WG review and planning meetings, and through site and cross‐site visits. Furthermore, through ADB‐RETA 6136 support, IRRI has been able to host NARES staff in training workshops at IRRI headquarters. Unfortunately, Project support could not cover all of the training for specific technical skills in advanced research techniques; in other cases, not all training courses were available as expected at the outset of the Project. Fourth, CURE’s downstream approach provides researchers with the opportunity to assess constraints and opportunities to adoption at the farm level that can be translated into higher‐level objectives for nongovernmental and governmental agencies that address the well‐being of resource‐poor rural households. Furthermore, fostering these communication channels also allows CURE scientists to become aware of regional issues that are not always apparent at the
11
local research site. Many of the key sites integrated extra‐CURE officials in their communication channels in order to sensitize them on the supporting sector needs for wider adoption. For example, WG6‐Arakan Valley, Philippines, has integrated its PVS program into the national varietal testing and release program, the National Cooperative Test, which provides needed feedback to plant breeders on farmers’ criteria for new germplasm. CURE’s ADB‐RETA 6136 Project has been a complex undertaking given the assortment of outputs that extend beyond mere technology development and that address less quantifiable areas of cross‐site knowledge exchanges, capacity building, and network coordination. Complicating the effort are the key sites’ varied skill levels in farmer participatory research and the diverse and localized nature of stresses in unfavorable rice environments. The achievement of outputs has been substantial across CURE’s key sites considering the different sets of circumstances across such a broad array of research sites. We believe that each key site has developed several technologies that can improve rice productivity and/or lead to crop diversification; at the same time, this Project has increased our understanding of unfavorable environments, fostered dialogue among the various stakeholders, and thus set a foundation upon which further progress can be achieved. A summary of star technologies developed at each of the key sites is located in Appendix 3. F. THE STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT Following this introduction, the report is structured according to accomplishments achieved for each of the four outputs established at the Project inception. For the first output, we include sub‐outputs 1.1 and 1.2. Sub‐output 1.1 covers the baseline characterizations of the CURE sites, including socioeconomic and biophysical parameters, descriptions of the farming systems, technologies employed, indigenous knowledge, and farmers’ perceptions of their productivity problems. Sub‐output 1.2 includes the results of the specific research activities set forth at the Project outset for developing useful technologies to raise the crop productivity of each ecosystem. This is the heart of the report in terms of tangible products that were developed for improving farmers’ livelihoods. Output 2 covers the knowledge products of the research and activities accomplished for disseminating this information to farmers, extensionists, agricultural universities, and researchers. Output 3 gives a description of the training to which WG personnel were sent to learn farmer participatory research methods or to increase skills for agricultural research. Output 4 covers the assessment of impact, either quantitatively or qualitatively, or derived from feedback through researchers’ close interactions with farmers, and the engagement of government authorities, policymakers, and NGOs in support of further dissemination of the technologies. Finally, the appendices include the Logical Framework (I) and activities that were expected to achieve the outputs (II), a summary of star technologies developed for each ecosystem by Working Group (III), and a list of scientific publications, posters, and presentations at major scientific meetings, resulting from the research supported by ADB‐RETA 6136 (IV).
12
II. PROJECT RESULTS OF OUTPUTS BY WORKING GROUP A.1. Working Group 1 for drought‐prone lowlands Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya (IGKV) Raipur, India Output 1.1 Baseline information on farmer households, cropping practices, constraints, existing data sets, technologies, and recommendations made available. The Working Group at Raipur has two full‐time social scientists, who, in collaboration with the IRRI Social Sciences Division, conducted the baseline survey of the three villages at the key site. A formal survey of 50 households was conducted in each of the villages, based on a farm’s landholding size. Additional data were collected through the official census report, farmer group discussions, and interviews with key informants and local panchayat officials. The data in Table 1 were presented at the IGKV Rainfed Rice Symposium, 11‐13 Oct. 2004, in Raipur and reported to the WG1‐5 joint review and planning meeting, 28 Feb.‐3 March 2005, at IRRI headquarters. Subsequent meetings were held to finalize a manuscript for publication.
Table 1. Village data at CURE key site, Chhattisgarh, India.
Village Population Km from IGKV
Developmentlevel
Major soil type
% area available
to irrigation Tarra, Raipur District
2,900 35 Moderate Vertisols 62.7
Higna, Durg District
415 42 Poor Vertisols Nil
Kotanpali, Mahasamund District
750 102 Average Entisols Nil
Higna and Kotanpali villages have 66–75% of landholdings in the marginal and small size categories, whereas 4% are landless and 12–25% are in the medium to large landholding categories. Tarra has 57% of landholdings in marginal to small categories, whereas 18% are landless. Approximately 25% of the Tarra households are in the medium to large landholding category. Almost all people in the three villages are in the other backward caste/scheduled caste or tribe social categories as defined by the national government. Severe drought at the early and terminal stages of crop growth occurs once in every four years, reducing yields to less than 1.0 t ha–1, although frequent drought occurs every year. The recurring prevalence of drought seriously affects food supplies and destabilizes households due to lost income. In the severe drought of 2000, household income dropped 57% from the annual average of US$813. The crop is most susceptible to drought at the ling stage or when farmers perform their traditional establishment practice known as beushening (the local term is biasi), whereas terminal drought occurs at the reproductive stage (after mid‐September) when soil
13
fertility status is poor and the crop is subject to weeds and pests. Weeds are the main biotic production constraint, which results in 5–15% production losses. Biasi operations and handweeding are the main weed control practices. Farmers indicated they lack information about herbicides and that high cost and unfavorable weather discourage their use. The recent trend has been the adoption of improved varieties, which are sown on 95% of the rice lands. Less than one decade ago, only 44% of rice area was sown with improved varieties. Popular improved varieties are Swarna, MTU‐1010, Mahayama, MTU‐1001, IR64/IR36, Poornima, HMT, and other scented materials. Farmers are seeking lowland varieties with shorter duration, good yield and grain quality, low water requirement, and, to some extent, good market potential. Based on the survey, the social science team recommended that research activities should emphasize
• Effective use of existing resources; • Development of short‐duration, high‐yielding rice varieties with drought resistance; • Development and dissemination of drought‐alleviating technologies; • Development of a location‐specific cropping system for sustainable productivity and
crop intensification; and • Engagement in a strategic extension effort for need‐based training and dissemination of
technology in farming communities. Output 1.2 Feasible cropping innovations that combine complementary technologies for increasing productivity and reducing risks in rice‐based cropping systems developed and evaluated with farmers, and experiences shared across key sites of the target rainfed environments Detailed targets (WG1) Risk‐reducing and productivity‐enhancing crop and natural resource management practices developed for drought‐tolerant or drought‐avoiding responsive varieties and validated for specific risk profiles for both transplanting and direct‐seeded systems. a. At least 10 improved varieties and advanced breeding lines evaluated in a minimum of eight farmers’
fields per key site with participation of farmers and extension service providers. In 2004, nine improved varieties/advanced breeding lines were evaluated in Kotanpali and Tarra villages and 14 improved varieties/advanced breeding lines were evaluated in Hingna village. The three top‐preferred entries were Mahamaya, IR64, and IR73234‐2. Entries R979‐1‐1528‐2‐1 and Swarna were also ranked high. In 2005, PVS trials on five farms tested 15 early‐duration genotypes at upland sites of these villages, of which R979‐1528‐2‐1, R1027‐2282‐2‐1, and IR74371‐70‐1‐1 were highly favored by farmers. The farmer‐preferred new varieties performed as well as the best current varieties
14
under favorable conditions, but yielded much higher under severe stress. A total of 17 genotypes were tested in lowlands in these villages, and those receiving farmers’ high rankings were experimental lines R741‐1‐55‐2‐1 and R1213‐1‐1 and one hybrid, PHB‐71. The analysis showed similar results for all three villages for short‐duration varieties; however, much more variation was observed for medium‐duration varieties. In 2006, PVS was conducted in three villages, where 18 entries were tested in researcher‐managed mother trials and four entries were tested in farmer‐managed baby trials. Trials at two sites suffered severe drought; however, breeding lines IR74371‐70‐1, Swarna/IR42253‐55‐207, ARB 8, and ARB 6 yielded 1.5–2.5 t ha–1 under stress while two popular high‐yielding check varieties yielded less than 0.5 t ha–1. Farmers also expressed their preference for these lines compared with the others tested. In 2007, PVS activities were conducted in five villages and at two sites per village with one site each in midlands and uplands. Each trial tested 16 entries covering a duration of 110–120 days, and included the best lines determined in previous PVS trials. Data analysis was ongoing at the time of this report writing in early 2008. b. At least one improved variety results in significantly higher productivity averaged over seasons,
including drought years. Two medium‐duration lines—ARB 6 and IRMBP‐2—gave good yield under severe drought stress when farmers’ popular varieties completely failed. The identification of shorter‐duration varieties with good yield potential is a major advancement that matches farmers’ demands for the drought‐prone lowland ecology. Under favorable conditions, ARB 6 and IRMBP‐2 yielded in the 6.0 t ha–1 range, similar to the performance of popular varieties Mahamaya, Samba Mahsuri, and Swarna (Table 2). However, these popular varieties had extreme yield loss and even yield collapse under moderate and severe drought stress. ARB 6 and IRMBP‐2 yielded 4.3 and 3.2 t ha–1, respectively, under moderate stress, and 1.9 and 1.3 t ha–1, respectively, under severe stress. In summary, the new varieties are high yielding without drought stress, maintain much higher yields under medium and severe water stress, and are of considerably shorter duration, which reduces the risk of late‐season drought damage and increases opportunities for a postrice crop. In addition, farmers liked their grain quality. Table 2. New medium‐duration materials tested against farmers’ usual varieties, Chhattisgarh State, India.
Entry Yield (t ha–1) Days to flowering Stress level Nil Mod. Sev. Nil Mod. Sev. ARB 6 6.7 4.3 1.9 79 78 81 IRMBP‐2 6.1 3.2 1.3 82 84 85 Checks Mahamaya 6.5 1.9 0.6 92 93 96 Samba Mahsuri 6.7 0.8 0.0 103 111 – Swarna 6.0 2.1 1.3 103 110 126
15
c. At least 50% of cooperating farmers adopt/prefer improved breeding lines or released varieties over their current variety.
As it has been extremely difficult to develop suitable tolerant genotypes for the drought‐prone ecology and because most progress was achieved within the last four years only, WG1‐Raipur prioritized only the testing of new materials under a range of stress conditions for the term of this project. The specific objectives of Raipur’s germplasm development program were to identify farmers’ preferences and the kind of materials that match their criteria and perform well under the variable biophysical conditions of this ecology. Because the evaluation of these materials was ongoing, they were not used in Raipur’s crop management trials. Also, sufficient seed was unavailable. Therefore, the popular medium‐duration variety MTU1010 was used in crop management trials. This allowed farmers to observe the performance of the variety they would likely use should they adopt the new management practices instead of their usual cropping practices. However, by the end of this Project, we can report that ARB6, ARB8, and IR74371‐46 were nominated to India’s national varietal testing and release program (see section “d” below). The consistent high ranking of the best new materials in the numerous PVS trials, where the currently preferred varieties were used as checks, indicates the high likelihood of adoption should the national varietal test program approve these varieties for farmers’ use. d. At least one superior farmer‐preferred breeding line per key site is submitted for consideration for
official release, or released varieties are recommended. Three of the most promising lines, ARB6, ARB8, and IR74371‐46, were nominated to the All‐India Coordinated Rice Improvement Programme (AICRIP) for multilocational testing in 2007. As of this report writing, they were undergoing AICRIP’s multiyear field evaluations to ascertain their suitability for national release. e. Improved establishment, weed control, and nutrient management methods evaluated in a minimum
of eight farmers’ fields per key site with participation of farmers and agricultural development workers.
New establishment practices developed as effective alternatives to beushening The most widespread rice establishment method in eastern India’s rainfed lowlands is biasi or beushening. The technique consists of broadcast seeding after the onset of seasonal monsoon rains, followed about 30–40 days later by wet‐plowing in shallow water with a nonturning country plow. Thereafter, rice seedlings are redistributed by hand. This traditional cultural practice provides good crop establishment and weed control when timely, sufficient rains occur. However, disadvantages include high labor needs, high yield losses to weeds when insufficient early‐season rains delay the wet‐plowing, and a prolonged crop duration that increases late‐season drought risk and reduces options for a postrice crop.
16
WG1‐Raipur’s main target from 2004 to 2007 was therefore to investigate alternative establishment and weed management practices able to reduce needed labor, crop losses to weeds, and crop duration, and to increase the possibility for a postrice crop. Establishment options tested other than broadcast seeding were direct seeding in lines in dry and wet soil. These three establishment options were combined with three different weed control options: beushening and pre‐ or postemergence herbicides. Further on, farmers’ nutrient management was compared with the regionally recommended fertilizer practice. All trials were conducted in a participatory manner in farmers’ fields (at least four farmers per village) at three locations—Hingna (poor farmers, clay soil, low topography), Tarra (better‐off farmers, silty loam, medium topography), and Kotanpali (tribal area, sandy clay loam, medium topography). Table 3 illustrates some of the results based on 2006 data. In all villages, wet line sowing gave consistently higher yields than broadcast biasi. Dry seeding had a clear yield advantage in Kotanpali, characterized by light‐textured soils, but resulted in the lowest average yields in Hingna and Tarra (it even failed in Hingna due to an early‐season drought spell.) Wet‐line‐seeded rice reached maturity about 1 week before the traditionally established crop and the crop matured almost 1 month earlier in dry direct seeding. Table 3. Date of sowing, maturity, and yield under different establishment systems, Chhattisgarh District, 2006.
Higna (clayey) Tarra (silty loam) Kotanpali (sandy clay loam)Est. method Date
sown Maturity Yield
(t ha–1) Date sown
Maturity Yield (t ha–1)
Date sown
Maturity Yield (t ha–1)
Dry line seeding
5‐6 June
Failed 0.0 6 June
10 Oct.
3.23 25 June 15 Oct.
5.72
Wet line seeding
27 June 28‐30 Oct. 4.75 15 July 7 Nov.
4.58 15 July
7 Nov. 4.85
Broadcast biasi
June 28 3‐6 Nov. 4.35 12 July
11 Nov. 4.28 12 July
11 Nov. 3.57
The alternative establishment × weed management × fertility management options also had economic advantages as shown in Table 4 for Hingna and Kotanpali in 2006. Economic data were not collected from Tarra. Traditionally broadcast biasi had the highest labor requirement for crop establishment and weeding, which, in general, compensated for the higher input costs of the other two establishment and weed management options. As a result of input costs and yields achieved, wet line seeding resulted in higher net profits than broadcast biasi at both sites, and dry direct seeding was the most profitable option in Kotanpali. Farmers preferred postemergence herbicides (combined application of fenoxaprop + chlorimuron‐ethyl + metsulfuron‐methyl), which gave the highest returns at both sites. Finally, higher yields achieved with the recommended fertilizer practice more than compensated for the higher input costs and also increased net profit.
17
Table 4. Labor requirement, cost of cultivation, and net profit of rice in relation to establishment method and weed and fertilizer management, Hingna and Kotanpali, 2006.
Labor requirement (days)
Cost of cultivation (Rs ha–1)
Net profit (Rs ha–1)
Benefit:cost ratio (Rs Rs–1 invested) Treatment
Hingna Kotanpali Hingna Kotanpali Hingna Kotanpali Hingna Kotanpali Establishment method Dry line seeding – 137 – 13,716 – 24,978 – 2.82 Wet line seeding 135 136 14,648 13,825 17,397 18,910 2.19 2.37 Broadcast biasi 154 152 15,843 14,519 13,605 9,568 1.86 1.67 LSD (5%) 2 10 71 457 1,249 4,706 0.23 0.33 Weed management Pendimethalin 139 137 15,398 14,156 15,049 17,036 1.98 2.21 Fenox + chlor + met 132 131 15,133 13,727 16,174 21,930 2.07 2.60 Interculture/biasi 162 156 15,205 14,177 15,279 14,490 2.01 2.04 LSD (5%) 2 7 63 317 218 1,016 0.05 0.08 Fertilizer management Recom. fertilizer 145 144 15,809 14,425 14,239 19,633 2.02 2.38 Farmers’ fertilizer 144 139 14,681 13,614 8,795 16,004 1.66 2.19 LSD (5%) nsa 5 72 203 1171 1003 0.08 0.07 ans = nonsignificant. To evaluate farmers’ opinions and acceptance of the tested establishment × weed management × fertility management options, participatory management evaluations were conducted in all three villages in 2004 and 2005 (similar to the PVS method, we asked farmers to vote for the best treatment and their likelihood to adopt during a field visit in mid‐season). Farmers in Kotanpali clearly preferred dry seeding + postemergence herbicide, farmers in Tarra preferred wet line seeding with either pre‐ or postemergence herbicide, and farmers in Hingna liked the traditional broadcast biasi system and the wet line seeding with postemergence herbicide. These results indicate that the best establishment × weed management option is dependent on the soil texture and the available water resources, which are usually related to the topographic position of the field:
• Heavy‐textured, clayey fields dominate the lowest positions in the landscape (Hingna). These soils are very hard when dry, making dry soil preparation rather difficult; surface runoff from early rains accumulates here, making the traditional broadcast biasi system a good option. In slightly higher positions with less water accumulation, and for farmers with labor constraints and/or more purchasing power, wet line seeding with the use of postemergence herbicides might be the best option.
• On higher fields, the texture is usually lighter (loam–silty loam) and available water resources are frequently limited (Tarra). The traditional broadcast biasi system as well as dry line seeding are risky and wet line seeding with the use of postemergence herbicides offers the best option.
• Kotanpali with much sandier soils across the toposequence represents a different environment. Here, dry line seeding with the use of postemergence herbicides
18
outperformed the other options by far; farmers confirmed these results in their ratings of the various options.
Herbicide treatments for saving labor and improving yield Effective weed control is critical in farmers’ adoption of direct‐seeded systems because weed problems are more intense than in transplanted or broadcast establishment systems. Raipur’s studies showed that uncontrolled weeds in direct‐seeded rainfed rice can reduce yield by as much as 74%. WG1‐Raipur’s weed control experiments on 12 farms in three villages showed that postemergence herbicides are an effective way to improve yield and save labor. Farmers indicated they were most interested in postemergence herbicides due to a lack of water earlier in the season for preparing preemergence products for application. From an agronomic perspective, preemergence products have a short residual effect on weeds, so postemergence herbicides are preferable due to the long germination patterns of weed species. Table 5. Yields under different herbicide regimes vs. traditional establishment practices, Chhattisgarh State. For each weed management option, average values for all establishment and nutrient management options tested are shown.
2005 2006 Treatment Yield
(t ha–1) Yield diff. from biasi and %
Yield (t ha‐1)
Yield diff. from biasi and %
Preemergence 4.45 0.48 t ha–1 (12.0) 3.50 –0.55 t ha–1 (–13.5) Postemergence 4.33 0.36 t ha–1 (9.0) 4.55 0.50 t ha–1 (12.3) Interculture/ biasi operation
3.97 – 4.05 –
Results across sites from 2005 and 2006 (Table 5) showed that postemergence herbicides gave the most consistent yield results, ranging from one‐third (9%) to one‐half ton (12.3%) more than when weeds were controlled with the traditional biasi operation. Preemergence herbicides were more problematic, giving a half‐ton yield increase (12%) in 2005, but a half‐ton yield decrease (–13.5%) in 2006, in comparison with biasi. In concert with on‐farm work, researchers’ on‐station experiments ascertained that popular varieties used by farmers could recover rather well from products’ adverse interactions with rice plants, that is, phytotoxicity, which farmers had indicated was a constraint to adopting herbicide treatments. Varieties most susceptible to phytotoxicity, such as IR64 and Poornima, recovered within 9 days of herbicide treatment. Mahahmaya, MTU 1010, Swarna, and MTU 1001 recovered within 1 week or less. These tests involved fenoxaprop with chlorimuron‐ethyl and metsulfuron‐methyl herbicides. To prepare farmers for proper applications, training was given in the CURE villages (as well as in neighboring villages) 1 month before rice sowing and at the time of application. Improved nutrient management for consistent yield increases To test the existing nutrient management recommendations, two fertilizer rates were tested—the recommended rate (NPK 80‐50‐30 kg ha–1) and the average farmers’ rate, which was
19
determined in a baseline survey (NPK 50‐30‐0 kg ha–1). Results from all three seasons and across all sites, establishment, and weed management options are shown in Table 6. The results indicate a consistent yield increase of about 1 t ha–1 for the recommended fertilizer rate. Table 6. Yields for the two fertilizer management options tested, that is, the recommended rate (NPK 80‐50‐30 kg ha–1) and the average farmers’ rate (NPK 50‐30‐0 kg ha–1). For each fertilizer option, average values across all establishment and weed management options tested are shown.
2004 2005 2006
Yield Yield increase
Yield Yield increase
Yield Yield increase
Treatments
(t ha–1) Farmers’ rate 3.11 3.83 3.93 Recommended rate 4.13 1.02 4.69 0.86 4.94 1.01 f. Improved methods result in significantly higher productivity averaged over seasons, including
drought years. Wet and dry line seeding practices for earlier rice harvest New early‐establishment direct‐seeded systems sown with farmers’ popular early‐medium‐duration rice variety MTU 1010 resulted in higher productivity for the drought‐prone lowlands. In years with sufficient postrice soil moisture or late‐season rains, the rice‐based system could be diversified with a postrice sowing of chickpea. Wet line seeding and dry direct seeding, each of which includes applications of postemergence herbicides, enabled an earlier rice harvest and conserved more soil moisture for a following crop compared to the traditional beushening establishment system. Depending on the site, wet line seeding could give a 7–38% yield increase over beushening, and dry seeding had a clear yield advantage in Kotanpali, characterized by light‐textured soils, resulting in an almost 50% yield increase over beushening if the site conditions are favorable for this practice (Table 7). This reflects a yield increase of 0.3 to 1.4 t ha–1 for wet line seeding and as much as a 2.0 t ha–1 increase for dry seeding. For wet line seeding, the crop can be established in mid‐ to late July, which is about the same time as for the traditional establishment, but improved growth results in a 7‐ to 10‐day earlier maturity in late October or early November. Dry‐direct‐seeded crops can be sown in mid‐June, or 2 weeks earlier than the beushening‐established crops, and harvested in mid‐October, about 3 to 4 weeks earlier than in the beushening system.
20
Table 7. Yield data for new direct‐seeded establishment systems, Chhattisgarh, India. For each establishment system, average values for all weed and nutrient management options tested are shown.
2004 2005 2006 Establishment
method Yield (t ha–1)
% diff. from biasi
Yield (t ha–1)
% diff. from biasi
(absolute value)
Yield (t ha–1)
% diff. from biasi
(absolute value) Tarra Village (silty loam)
Dry seeding 2.17 –11.8 (–0.29) 3.45 –11.3 (–0.44) 3.23 –24.0 (–1.05) Wet line seeding 3.40 38.2 (0.94) 4.18 7.4 (0.29) 4.58 7.0 (0.30) Broadcast biasi 2.46 – 3.89 – 4.28 – Hingna Village (clayey) Dry seeding 3.21 15.9 (0.44) 4.36 3.0 (0.13) 0.0 –4.35 (–4.35) Wet line seeding 3.67 32.5 (0.90) 4.66 10.1 (0.43) 4.76 9.1 (0.40) Broadcast biasi 2.77 – 4.23 – 4.35 – Kotanpali Village (sandy clay loam) Dry seeding 5.46 48.8 (1.79) 5.20 37.2 (1.33) 5.72 47.8 (2.15) Wet line seeding 5.07 38.2 (1.40) 4.45 15.7 (0.75) 4.85 35.8 (1.28) Broadcast biasi 3.67 – 3.87 – 3.57 – Chances improved for sowing postrice crop The earlier harvest with dry‐seeded rice may permit the sowing of a postrice crop of chickpea, depending on the residual soil moisture available and/or late rains. Farmers have expressed a keen interest in chickpea as it yields more and attracts a higher price than the usual laythrus postrice crop. Chickpea as a postrice crop was established after dry line‐seeded rice in Kotanpali in 2004 and 2005; in both years, moisture availability after rice harvest was not sufficient for any of the other establishment options, and in 2006 chickpea could not even be established after dry line‐seeded rice (Table 8). Table 8. Chickpea yields as post‐rice crop, Kotanpali, India.
Grain yield (t ha–1) Rice establishment method 2004 2005 2006
Dry seeding 0.56 0.75 Not sown due to lack of late‐season rains
Wet line seeding Not sown due to lack of postrice residual soil moisture Broadcast biasi Not sown due to lack of postrice residual soil moisture Herbicides as an effective alternative to biasi The traditional establishment system is labor‐intensive, as weeds are controlled by the biasi operation, which makes the subsequent manual redistribution of rice seedlings necessary. The new establishment practices use a herbicide application in place of the biasi operation, although either system requires one or two handweedings later. Consequently, WG1‐Raipur recorded
21
significant labor savings, which, with better weed control and improved nutrient management, translated into higher economic returns for the direct‐seeded establishment practices (Table 8). At Hingna, wet line seeding saved 19 labor days compared to biasi, which required 154 labor days. At Kotanpali, dry seeding and wet line seeding saved 15 and 16 labor days, respectively, compared to biasi, which required 152 labor days. Labor data were not compiled at Tarra. In terms of economic returns, WG1‐Raipur calculated that Kotanpali farmers recouped INR 2.82 and INR 2.37 for each rupee invested in dry seeding and wet line seeding, respectively, compared to INR 1.67 for biasi. At Hingna, wet line seeding recouped INR 2.19 for each rupee invested compared to INR 1.86 for biasi. g. At least 50% of cooperating farmers adopt one or more components of improved technology During the 2007 ADB‐RETA 6136 Project one‐year extension at no additional cost, wet line seeding was scaled out to 25 farmers in Tarra village (20 ha) and 12 farmers in Hingna village (5 ha), and dry direct seeding was scaled out to eight farmers in Kotanapali village (5 ha). The total of farmers was 35 for a total scaling out on 30 ha at this key site. Furthermore, there was visual evidence that these technologies were spreading to neighboring villages; a postseason survey was under way to document the technology diffusion. It appeared that four villages (about 10 ha) were adopting the new technologies around Tarra village, two villages (about 10 ha) were adopting the technologies around Hingna village, and three villages (about 10 ha) were adopting technologies around Kotanapli village. The drought‐prone sites received an unusually favorable year for rainfall in terms of sufficient moisture and distribution throughout the growing season. A total of 200 mm of rainfall came from 5 July to 29 July. A qualitative impact assessment in late October determined that farmers adapted to favorable rainfall by broadcasting seed under puddled conditions rather than following the wet line seeding practice. However, they omitted the traditional biasi operation and applied herbicides for weed control, just as they would under wet line seeding. As the year was not suitable for wet line seeding, we could not evaluate farmers’ adoption. However, farmers were impressed by the effective weed control, labor savings, and associated cost savings, yield and performance of rice, and the opportunity to sow a postrice chickpea crop. They indicated their interest in adoption by
Dry‐Seeding Practices Motivate Kotanpali Farmers to Adopt
Farmers at a CURE’s drought‐prone site, Kotanpali village in Chhattisgarh, India, indicated they would adopt dry direct seeding, as they asked CURE to discontinue its support of seed and herbicides. They were impressed by the new practices and would continue using them on their own. They only asked for continued technical guidance and herbicide application training from the CURE Working Group. This indicates that farmers may be able to easily adopt dry direct seeding without having to make substantial financial outlays, and, in this sense, the technology is sustainable as farmers can continue the practice by using their available resources. Just as in the other CURE villages for this key site, farmers said they appreciated the savings of labor and associated costs, better crop performance and yield, and also that this system provides the opportunity to grow a postrice chickpea crop.
22
requesting continued training on herbicide application procedures and updates on herbicide products. As one farmer put it: “With wet line seeding, the crop does so well compared to biasi.” i. Guidelines available to extension services for adaptation into locally available extension materials. During the one‐year extension at no additional cost, the Working Group prioritized the scaling out of these technologies to assure that farmers would be able to take advantage of improved technologies by using them. Extensive data from the on‐farm trials were still being compiled by the Project’s end, and will be available for formulating into guidelines for extension and outreach agencies for future use. Output 2 Knowledge distilled into decision tools, management principles, and operational guidelines that are extension‐ready; extrapolation domains of improved production systems identified. The principles of integrated nutrient management for rainfed drought‐prone lowlands were not very well known prior to CURE’s research supported by the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project. Uniform recommendations based on research in irrigated systems did not seem to be suitable for rainfed environments, and farmers used their own principles based on everyday experiences in growing crops here. As a result of CURE’s on‐farm work during this project, we were able to develop a framework for site‐specific nutrient management in water‐limited environments. The principles are
• Fertilizer response under drought stress can be similar/equal to the response in irrigated systems;
• Even traditional varieties can give good fertilizer response; but • Fertilizer rates must be decreased with increasing stress to get a good response; and • Fertilizer response declines rapidly when stress occurs around flowering.
CURE has shown that nutrient management integrated with improved varieties, herbicide use, and direct seeding in lines can increase yield while reducing risk and labor needs, and shorten crop duration to allow for seeding a postrice sequence crop. Findings have been published on nutrient management (Sharma et al 2005), and findings are in the process of being published in workshop proceedings on varietal recommendations (Kumar and Atlin 2007), direct seeding (Rathore et. al. 2007), and policy implications (Pal 2007). Furthermore, CURE’s work in eastern India has integrated these principles into an E‐learning format for the online Rice Production Course available in the IRRI Rice Knowledge Bank. Researchers, extensionists, and agricultural colleges can access these materials to better help farmers in adjusting their practices to biophysical parameters (soil type and weather) and socioeconomic factors (financial status, labor availability, and access to machinery).
23
Output 3 Capacity of NARES strengthened for implementing integrative and participatory technology development and dissemination. Although the Working Group set forth an extensive program for formal training of its members, many of the proposed courses were either not available or were not developed. These included nutrient management, weed management, and crop establishment courses for rainfed environments. However, the Working Group did take advantage of other available training opportunities in participatory methods, plant breeding, and statistical training. A summary follows in Table 9. Table 9. NARES capacity‐building activities, CURE WG1‐Raipur.
Training/activities WG1‐Raipur participants Innovative Research Methods and Strategies for Conducting Research in Rainfed Environments Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand, 4 June 2004
Dr. Gary Atlin, WG1 leader; Dr. M.N. Shrivastava, key site coordinator
Planning Plant Breeding Programs for Impact IRRI HQ, Los Baños, Philippines, 7‐18 Feb. 2005
Dr. S. Verulkar and Dr. A. Kumar
IRRISTAT statistical program IRRI HQ, Los Baños, Philippines, 28 Feb.‐1 March 2005
Dr. S.K. Patil, Dr. A.L. Rathore, Dr. S.K. Taunk, Dr. M.L. Sharma, Dr. S.S. Kolhe, and Dr. R.K. Sahu
Participatory Approaches for Agricultural Research & Extension, IRRI HQ, Los Baños, Philippines, 7‐18 Aug. 2006
Dr. Vidyanand Mishra
Output 4 Farmer acceptability and viability of innovative production systems assessed; policymakers and development authorities sensitized on supporting sector needs for wider adoption. An IRRI anthropologist conducted a qualitative impact assessment at three CURE villages on 29 Oct.‐1 Nov. 2007. This study, combined with the Working Group’s experimental data from farmer participatory work, confirmed that new establishment systems and crop management practices were farmer acceptable and were viable across the range of environmental conditions that could be expected in this drought‐prone environment. The qualitative impact assessment elicited farmers’ perceptions from focus group discussions in the villages or in the field. A significant finding at Kotanpali village was that farmers reported that they would continue with dry direct line seeding without project support of seed (MTU1010) and herbicides. They requested only continued technical guidance from the WG1‐Raipur team. In other words, improved crop performance convinced these farmers that they could continue these practices by their own means. This is significant because it indicates that these technologies are sustainable under the financial constraints and labor requirements of
24
farmers of this ecosystem. This also indicates that these technologies can be adapted by other farmers in similar circumstances in this ecosystem. A second significant finding was that farmers in Tarra and Hingna villages who tested the wet direct‐seeding practices for drought‐prone environments could still adapt the postemergence herbicide treatments for years of favorable rainfall. There was sufficient rainfall during the one‐year project extension at no additional cost (2007) so farmers used their usual broadcasting method of sowing in puddled conditions rather than wet direct seed the crop in lines. However, they were able to use herbicide treatments they had learned and obtained effective weed control. This is significant because this flexibility leads to farmer acceptability because the practices can be adapted effectively to raise system productivity for the range of climatic conditions in Chhattisgarh State. Other major findings were that
• Food security is not as much of an issue as are the labor shortages for critical tasks in field operations for traditional rice establishment systems. Better‐paying jobs draw male laborers away from critical labor‐intensive tasks required for traditional beushening operations. Farmers perceive that the new direct‐seeding practices can save them labor and costs of production in establishing a crop.
• Farmers cited numerous advantages of these direct‐seeding technologies compared with the traditional beushening system, including earlier rice establishment and harvest, better growth and higher yield of the rice crop, less labor requirements that are less costly, better use of seed and fertilizers when the crop is sown in a line, and the opportunity for sowing a postrice chickpea crop if late‐season soil moisture is available.
• Farmers are keen to plant a postrice chickpea crop due to higher yield and a higher market price compared with a usual postrice crop of lathyrus that can be grown only in fields that have irrigation available.
• Farmers appear to be motivated to diligently follow the herbicide application procedures that the Working Group taught them. They want to follow correct procedures to avoid phytotoxic effects on rice plants, and they asked for continued training in proper application procedures.
• The adoption of these technologies appears to have had positive effects that have radiated throughout the living standards of participating farmers, and, in some cases, this has even improved their mental outlook.
In each of CURE’s three villages, researchers could identify two or three other villages that were beginning to use the new technologies. The research team facilitated this process by providing training in proper herbicide application methods. To document the adoption, the Working Group was conducting a quantitative survey in the final months of the project extension.
25
A.2 Working Group 1 for drought‐prone lowlands Ubon Ratchathani Rice Research Center (URRC) Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand Output 1.1 Baseline information on farmer households, cropping practices, constraints, existing data sets, technologies, and recommendations made available. The Working Group 1 at the key site, Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand, lacks social science support for conducting a baseline survey on the two main research villages in northeastern Thailand. However, the WG was able to compile information from past projects that was useful in the conduct of the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project research. The information was presented to the joint WG1‐5 review and planning meeting, 28 Feb.‐3 March 2005, at IRRI headquarters. One of the CURE villages in Thailand, Kam Pa‐oong, Roi Et Province, is about 190 km northwest of Ubon. Rice production is largely a subsistence activity as 58% of the crop is for home consumption. This is also reflected by the fact that more than three‐fourths of the rice varieties planted are RD6, a glutinous variety, while about 20% of production is KDML 105, a nonglutinous material that is a main export of the region. The average rice yield is 2.23 t ha–1. Transplanting is the main rice establishment system, whereas about one‐tenth of the crop is direct‐seeded. Drought is the main production constraint and is most likely at the vegetative stage. Annual rainfall averages 1,300 mm. About half of the soils are sandy with low moisture capacity, whereas clay/loamy sands are the next major grouping and they are poorly drained. Farmers generally apply 16‐16‐8 fertilizers two times: the first is 1 to 2 weeks after transplanting and the second at the rice reproductive stage. About one‐half of the farm households use no weed control, whereas one‐third weed by hand and about one‐fifth use herbicides. As the high cost of fertilizers is a major constraint, the WG studied farm households’ application practices, with the possibility of developing efficient soil fertility methods. Other major constraints cited by farmers were low product prices, high labor costs, and lack of money for investment in household operations. WG1‐Ubon’s other main site is Sra Patoum village in Phimai District, Nakorn Ratchasima Province, about 250 km due west of Ubon. Unlike Kam Pa‐oong, most of the rice is marketed, whereas about one‐fifth of annual production is consumed by the household. The main nonglutinous varieties, which are marketed, are RD15 and, to a lesser extent, KDML 105. For home consumption, households raise the glutinous variety RD6. Yields range from 1.25 to 3.12 t ha–1, but 1.24 to 1.87 t ha–1 is the typical average. Much more rice is direct‐seeded in Sra Patoum than in Kam Pa‐oong, although it is the establishment method for about one‐quarter of the rice area. The rest is transplanted. Average rainfall here is about 1,000 mm. More than half of the soils are sandy with low moisture‐holding capacity, whereas clay/loamy sands are the next major grouping and they are poorly drained.
26
Drought is likely to occur at any stage of rice growth, that is, sowing/transplanting and vegetative and reproductive stages. Field nutrient management is the same as in Kam Pa‐oog: farmers apply 16‐8‐8 at 1 to 2 weeks after transplanting, and the second application is at the reproductive stage. As direct seeding seems to be spreading to this area, the WG has worked on weed control as the primary research focus. Roughly one‐third of the households use no weed control at all, another third use hand weeding, and the other third use herbicides. Farmers indicated that socioeconomic constraints are low prices for products, high cost of fertilizers, and high labor costs. Output 1.2 Feasible cropping innovations that combine complementary technologies for increasing productivity and reducing risks in rice‐based cropping systems developed and evaluated with farmers; experiences shared across key sites of the target rainfed environments Detailed targets (WG1) Risk‐reducing and productivity‐enhancing crop and natural resource management practices developed for drought‐tolerant or drought‐avoiding responsive varieties and validated for specific risk profiles for both transplanting and direct‐seeded systems. a. At least 10 improved varieties and advanced breeding lines evaluated in a minimum of eight farmers’
fields per key site with participation of farmers and extension service providers. In 2004, researchers tested 20 short‐ and medium‐duration advanced backcross derivatives of the farmers’ usual variety, KDML 105, which were chosen for their blast resistance, at three sites in Phimai District, Nakorn Ratchasima Province, and at two sites in Roi Et Province. Data collected under a severe drought at some of the sites, combined with previous years’ data under severe stress, allowed researchers to confirm that KDML 105 and its derivatives are highly tolerant of late‐season drought. CURE’s work with KDML 105 under extreme stress is one of the rare documented confirmations of a highly drought‐tolerant genotype adapted to the lowland environment. The identification of promising materials expands our knowledge in that (a) KDML 105 can be used as a donor for lowland drought tolerance and (b) genes for improved yield performance and disease tolerance can be introgressed into a KDML 105 background to preserve the quality and drought tolerance needed by farmers in northeastern Thailand. Varietal work for northeastern Thailand was shifted to aerobic rice under the support of a Challenge Program for Water and Food, Developing a System of Temperate and Tropical Aerobic Rice (STAR) in Asia. The rationale is that aerobic rice would be a suitable fit for an indigenous rotational system involving sugarcane and cassava, which are increasingly grown as cash crops on about 1 million hectares of upper fields of northeastern Thailand. Improved or traditional upland rice cultivars that farmers use are not specifically developed for these systems and the
27
environment. On‐farm trials, along with on‐station tests, were conducted in Phimai District, Nakorn Ratchasima Province, and in Roi Et Province and Maha Sarakham Province. b. At least one improved variety results in significantly higher productivity averaged over seasons,
including drought years. Two years of on‐farm tests showed that KDML 105‐backcross derivatives yielded 1.7 t ha–1 when severe drought occurs at flowering and grain‐filling, which would otherwise restrict other sorts of materials from making a crop. Thus, under stress conditions, these materials could achieve yields roughly within the range of annual rice yield averages of 2.30 t ha–1 at the Roi Et site and 1.25–1.87 t ha–1 at the Phimai site. However, large production gains would be limited because KDML 105 has a yield ceiling of about 4 t ha–1 under the most favorable conditions. c. At least 50% of cooperating farmers adopt/prefer improved breeding lines or released varieties over
their current variety. Varietal adoption in northeastern Thailand is market‐driven, as farmers grow KDML 105‐derived materials in response to consumer demand and export markets for jasmine rice. Therefore, the role of varietal improvement in this production system is limited by the productive capacity of KDML 105. Varietal improvement programs concentrate on increased stress tolerance (mainly drought and blast tolerance) and are unlikely to increase this variety’s yield ceiling of about 4 t ha–1. Farmers will continue to grow it unless consumer and export market preferences shift to a different variety that is higher yielding or that achieves a higher price on the market. d. At least one superior farmer‐preferred breeding line per key site is submitted for consideration for
official release, or released varieties are recommended. The first short‐duration KDML 105 backcross derivative, RD33, was released to farmers on 6 March 2007. This variety is highly tolerant of blast and matures approximately 1 to 2 weeks earlier than KDML 105, which reduces its exposure to late‐season drought frequently occurring in northeastern Thailand. This variety is indistinguishable in quality from KDML 105. The variety is a product of farmer participatory selection conducted by CURE and the Department of Agriculture of Thailand. e. Improved establishment and weed control methods evaluated in a minimum of eight farmers’ fields
per key site with participation of farmers and agricultural development workers. In 2004, participatory experiments were conducted on five upper and five lower fields in Phimai District to evaluate the effectiveness of preemergence and postemergence herbicide treatments in direct‐seeded crops relative to water‐level fluctuations on weed pressure. A second activity evaluated farmers’ usual weed management in plots that were clean weeded by hand. A third activity tested a rice‐mungbean intercrop system with six farmers, as farmers had
28
indicated an interest in this practice. However, the cropping season brought weather extremes, starting with heavy rains and concluding with severe late‐season drought. Therefore, some participating farmers reverted to transplanting, which indicates their preference over direct‐seeding under early‐season favorable moisture conditions. Weed pressure reduced yields by an average of 0.6 t ha–1 in direct‐sown fields relative to cleanly weeded crops. Complete weed control resulted in a 25–30% yield increase in direct‐seeded crops. Based on the 2004 experience, weed management options were narrowed to two options in 2005: (a) postemergence herbicide treatment and (b) rice‐mungbean intercrop system. As before, experiments were conducted on five upper and five lower fields. A late‐season drought at the vegetative stage damaged all rice plants, resulting in very low yields. The highest yield of 0.70 t ha–1 came from direct‐seeded rice treated with postemergence herbicide and the recommended fertilizer rate. Direct‐seeded rice with farmers’ management yielded only 0.40 t ha–1 independent of the fertilizer rate. Early heavy rains damaged the mungbean crop, preventing farmers from harvesting it. The 2005 on‐farm experiments targeting direct‐seeded rice were repeated in 2006 at Phimai. Again, late‐season drought destroyed the trials in upper fields completely. Mungbean intercropping succeeded in lower fields and participating farmers mentioned higher soil fertility as an advantage. However, discussions with participating farmers revealed that they were not ready to spend labor harvesting the mungbean and that mungbean seed availability and price would not allow them to continue this technique. In addition, yield loss evaluations were repeated in 10 fields at Phimai and Surin. At Phimai, average yield losses due to weeds in lower fields were about 11%, while they were about 26% in upper fields. Similarly, at Surin, average yield losses due to weeds were 6% in lower fields and 35% in upper fields. A total of 67 weed species were found at the Phimai site. It can be summarized that, even though the results of CURE’s three‐year weed management trials indicate that there are considerable crop losses due to weeds, farmers were not ready to adopt any of the tested weed control measures as a general management practice (although some
Harnessing farmers’ knowledge: rice cutting in northeast Thailand
Conducting farmer participatory research allows scientists to generate new rice production ideas from farmers. WG1‐Ubon used ADB‐RETA 6136 support to investigate the effects of a newly described indigenous “rice cutting” practice. According to this practice, farmers direct‐seed their crops and then cut the plants 15 cm above ground about 1 or 2 months after establishment. The cut biomass covers the field, which, according to the farmers, serves as “mulch” that suppresses weeds, improves soil fertility, and has an ultimate benefit on yield. CURE’s 2006 studies at Ubon showed that, in low‐fertility upland soils, rice cutting reduced weed growth and produced a significantly higher yield than in the uncut treatments. No significant difference between rice cutting and the noncut crops was observed on highly fertile lowland soils at Chumpae. The Thai CURE team continued this research in 2007 with funding by the national system (data analysis in progress). The goal of this ongoing work is to determine whether the rice‐cutting practice offers a new technology for improved weed and soil management for rainfed rice in northeast Thailand.
29
farmers do use herbicides already). In lower fields, the combination of generally good water supplies and the vigorous growth of preferred traditional varieties such as KDML 105 and RD6 controls weeds sufficiently. Weed‐suppressing management interventions, for example, more frequent harrowing before establishment, leveling, and herbicides, are used on individual fields with observed high weed pressure. On upper fields with frequent water limitation, good crop yields can only be achieved in “wet” years and farmers will not invest many inputs and/or much labor because of the high production risk. Therefore, in comparison with farmers’ current practice, none of the available and tested technologies for improved weed management in direct‐seeded rice provided a sufficient productivity increase to get farmers interested. As a consequence, no related special recommendations or information materials were developed even though the results are currently prepared for publication. f. Improved nutrient management methods that take into account water status and pest risk evaluated
in a minimum of eight fields per key site with participation of farmers and extension workers. CURE’s on‐farm nutrient management work in Roi Et Province is significant in two main aspects: first, it confirmed the strength of obtaining local knowledge of farmers’ practices through farmer participatory on‐farm research: second, it showed the limitations of the existing uniform and large‐scale fertilizer recommendation. The observed farmers’ practice of using fertilizers (Table 10), which may be as much as 85% below the current recommended rates, was highly field‐specific and cost‐efficient, and maintained system productivity. As a result, researchers improved their understanding of drought‐prone rainfed lowland rice in northeast Thailand and are now in the process of developing site‐specific fertilizer recommendations combining scientific principles and farmers’ knowledge and understanding of their production environment. Table 10. Comparison of farmers’ nutrient management practices with currently recommended fertilizer rates, Roi Et Province, northeast Thailand. Nutrient
Recommended rate (kg ha–1)
Farmers’ rates (kg ha–1)
% diff.
N 40 6.0–12.0 –70 to –85 P 12 2.5–5.0 –58 to –79 K 0–10 2.5–5.0 + to –50 In 2004, participatory experiments evaluating fertilizer treatments were conducted on 10 farms at the Roi Et site. The results showed that farmers’ low fertilizer rates are as productive but often more profitable than recommended doses for traditional varieties such as RD6, RD15, and KDML 105, which can yield up to 4.0 t ha–1 only under favorable conditions of standing water (usually occurring in lower fields) and in soils with a clay content greater than 5%. The 2005 on‐farm trials verified the effectiveness of the farmers’ practice of applying low N rates on N‐use efficiency in tests in eight fields each in upper and lower terraces in Roi Et Province (Table 11). In general, the tests showed that low rates of fertilizer (20‐8.7‐8.3 NPK ha‐1)
30
could get as good results as medium rates (40‐8.7‐8.3 NPK ha–1). But the amount of improvement in crop growth and yield depended on the field position in the toposequence. On upper terraces, the tests showed that fertilizer could significantly improve crop growth and grain yield, but the amount of improvement diminished quickly as higher rates were applied. A doubled rate of N brought about only a slight improvement in crop growth and yield. On lower terraces, even low fertilizer rates (20‐8.7‐8.3 NPK ha–1) could only slightly improve crop growth and yield, and a doubled N rate (40‐8.7‐8.3 NPK ha–1) did not increase yields significantly. Table 11. Cost‐benefit analysis of nutrient management practices at different levels of the toposequence, Roi Et Province, 2004.
Treatments Fertilizer costs(baht ha–1)
Yield gain overunfertilized
control (t ha–1)
Average value/
cost ratio Upper & middle terraces T1 (farmers’ practice) 1,565 0.4 2.1 T3 (improved variety V1 + fertilizer rate)
2,051 0.4 1.8
T4 (improved variety V2 + fertilizer rate)
2,051 0.4 1.7
Lower terraces T1 (farmers’ practice) 888 0.3 2.0 T5 (farmers’ variety + fertilizer rate)
1,499 0.4 1.6
T6 (improved variety V3 + fertilizer rate)
1,499 0.1 0.5
g. Improved methods result in significantly (at P = 0.05) higher productivity averaged over seasons,
including drought years. The principles of nutrient management for rainfed lowland rice are still in development and no improved nutrient management technology was available at the beginning of the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project. Therefore, an important goal of CURE’s work in northeastern Thailand was to develop site‐specific and efficient fertilizer recommendations for rainfed lowland rice. Based on CURE’s farmer participatory experimentation during the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project and the re‐analysis of nutrient management studies from 1995 to 1997, the WG1 team was able to develop a tentative framework for field‐/site‐specific nutrient management in the rainfed lowlands of northeastern Thailand. A draft of the proposed decision tool, which is currently being further refined, appears in Figure 1. The validation of this framework is still ongoing based on a database that includes CURE trials and experiments conducted within various other projects. The target is to provide farmers with a simple decision tool allowing them to optimize their fertilizer management according to the conditions in individual fields.
31
Fig. 1. Proposed decision tree for site-specific nutrient management options (to be verified).
Very low inorganic
and organic fertilizer
Medium inorganic fertilizer
Onlyorganic fertilizer
Very low inorganic
and/or organic fertilizer
Yield without fertilizer< 3 t ha–1
Yield without fertilizer< 3 t ha–1
Yield without fertilizer= 3 t ha–1
Very low inorganic fertilizer
< 5% clay
> 5% clay
< 5% clay> 5% clay
High drought riskLow drought risk
Second, the WG1 CURE team recognized that such a decision tool needed to take farmers’ decision making into consideration to ensure that they would and could adopt the framework developed. For this purpose, and under guidance from the IRRI Social Sciences Division, WG1‐Ubon conducted surveys in eight villages (two near Ubon, three in Roi Et, and three in Phimai; total of 72 participants) to better understand farmers’ decision‐making processes in order to combine scientific principles and farmers’ knowledge in new recommendations. Important results were that
• Farmers are well aware of the beneficial effect of organic fertilizer for soil fertility (preferably applied on poor soils), but use is constrained by the availability and labor needed. Farmers apply less organic fertilizer if the crop looked good last season and if they have few organic materials available. Farmers believe that organic fertilizer is acting slower than inorganic fertilizer, but that the positive effect lasts longer, and it can have negative effects if it contains a lot of weed seeds.
• Inorganic fertilizer rates are often adjusted to the toposequence; in Roi Et (limited drought risk), farmers tend to apply higher fertilizer rates on upper fields; in Phimai (high drought risk), they tend to apply less on upper fields.
• Inorganic fertilizer rates are often adjusted to crop growth in the previous season; they are lower if the previous season was good and vice‐versa.
• Inorganic fertilizer rates are often adjusted during the season. Farmers increase the rate if the crop looks bad; they reduce the rate if the crop looks good; they skip fertilizer application if there is no water in the field.
• Farmers apply more inorganic fertilizer if the rice price is high, less if weed infestation is high.
32
Final products, including a framework for fertilizer use in northeast Thailand, decision tools, and materials for the Thai Rice Knowledge Bank, all of which will be used to address researchers, extension staff, and farmers, are in preparation and will be finalized in 2008. CURE also conducted on‐station tests to investigate whether black carbon in the form of charred rice husks could improve the soil fertility of northeastern Thailand’s poor soils, as other studies have shown benefits of black carbon on highly weathered tropical soils. In 2005 and 2006, carbonized rice husk applications with or without various rates of inorganic fertilizer were studied (Table 12). The control plots were either untreated with carbonized residues or fertilizer, or were treated only with a medium rate of fertilizer. In general, the results from both seasons showed that carbonized rice husks had a positive effect on rice yields (KDML 105). Analysis of soils samples showed an effect of carbonized rice husks on soil organic matter concentration and total content. This research is targeted at integrated bioenergy‐rice production systems in which rice residues are used for energy production and by‐products (biochar) can be used to improve soils sustainably. Interest in such systems is increasing rapidly and possible applications are much more likely within 2008. Table 12. Grain yields at 14% moisture content for all treatments of field experiments at Ubon (northeast Thailand), two seasons.
2005 WS grain yielda
2006 WS grain yielda Treatment Application
(t ha–1) (t ha–1)
1 No fertilizer/ no carbonized husks
2.63 b 2.18 c
2 Medium fertilizer/ no carbonized husks
3.31 ab 2.63 b
3 No fertilizer/ carbonized husks
2.73 b 2.76 b
4 Medium fertilizer/ carbonized husks
3.71 a 3.33 a
5 No fertilizer/ rice husks
2.61 b 2.27 c
6 Medium fertilizer/ rice husks
3.10 ab 2.88 b
aYield results from one site and followed by a common letter are not significantly different according to the Tukey‐Kramer test with P < 0.05. h. At least 50% of cooperating farmers adopt one or more components of the improved technology. The newly developed variety RD33 was released only in 2007 and it is too early to evaluate its impact. Adoption will depend not only on varietal performance but also on the rice price for this variety. Similarly, the decision support tool for improved nutrient management will be released in 2008 and it is not yet feasible to assess how many farmers will adopt new site‐
33
specific nutrient management guidelines. Partly, this will depend on how outreach organizations, such as the extension service, use this material, but this probably will take some time. However, the CURE WG1‐Ubon’s work showed that hardly any farmer uses the existing nutrient management recommendations, indicating that improved concepts and recommendations are needed. The research also showed that many farmers are already using elements of the developed field‐/site‐specific nutrient management approach, but the new decision tool will allow more rainfed lowland farmers in northeast Thailand to improve their crop management. i. Guidelines available to extension services for adaptation into locally available extension materials. Based on CURE experiments and earlier data, the principles and the framework for improved nutrient management in rainfed lowland rice were developed and published (Haefele at al 2004, 2006, 2008, Haefele 2005, Kunnika et al 2006, Haefele and Bouman 2008). These publications addressed mainly rice scientists in the region. The basic lessons were integrated into an E‐learning course on rice production targeted at NARES and available online from IRRI’s Rice Knowledge Bank. The same material was provided to NARES colleagues and integrated into the Thai version of the Rice Knowledge Bank. An update of the nutrient management module in the Thai version of the Rice Knowledge Bank will be prepared and published in early 2008. Output 2 Knowledge distilled into decision tools, management principles, and operational guidelines that are extension‐ready; extrapolation domains of improved production systems identified. Based on CURE’s farmer participatory experimentation from the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project and data from nutrient management studies from 1995 to 1997, we now have a framework for a site‐specific nutrient management strategy in rainfed lowland rice. This is significant because there was no improved nutrient management technology before the start of the Project. Furthermore, uniform fertilizer recommendations were based on irrigated rice systems—not always appropriate for rainfed rice‐based systems—and were generally not followed by farmers in rainfed environments. The new strategy involved re‐thinking of nutrient management vis‐à‐vis rainfed ecosystems, requiring researchers to establish considerable theoretical groundwork. The findings of this investigation are reported in three publications (Haefele et al 2006, Naklang et al 2006, Rathore et al 2008). The rationale and findings of this work are further discussed in WG1‐Ubon’s Outputs 1.2 section of this report. Consequently, WG1‐Ubon is integrating its field research with input from farmers about their decision‐making in this environment. Focus group discussions were conducted in 2007 among 72 farmers in eight villages near Ubon, and in Phimai District and Roi Et Province. The objectives of these discussions are
• To understand and document farmers’ management decisions for nutrient management of rainfed rice in northeast Thailand,
• To compare farmers’ practice with researchers’ concept of best‐bet nutrient management options, and
34
• To integrate both approaches and develop improved nutrient management recommendations that are acceptable to farmers.
One output, expected in 2008, will be a nutrient management decision tool taking into account water fluctuation levels and pest risk for the different levels of the toposequence. Another output will be a training course for nutrient management in water‐limited environments, so extensionists, researchers, and staff of agricultural outreach organizations can better advise farmers in northeast Thailand and similar environments. In 2007, these materials were incorporated into an E‐learning course available through the IRRI Rice Knowledge Bank (RKB) so they can be accessed worldwide by those working in similar environments. In addition, the WG1‐Ubon team is developing these materials for the Thai version of the RKB so the information can be accessed by agricultural specialists working in that country. Output 3 Capacity of NARES strengthened for implementing integrative and participatory technology development and dissemination. Although the Working Group set forth an extensive program for formal training of its members, many of the proposed courses were either not available or were not developed. These included nutrient management, weed management, and crop establishment courses for rainfed environments. However, the Working Group did take advantage of other available training opportunities in participatory methods, technology transfer, and statistical training. A summary follows in Table 13. Table 13. NARES capacity‐building activities, CURE WG1‐Ubon.
Training/activities WG1‐Ubon participants Innovative Research Methods and Strategies for Conducting Research in Rainfed Environments Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand, 4 June 2004
Dr. Gary Atlin, WG1 leader Dr. Varapong Chamarerk, key site coordinator
IRRISTAT statistical program IRRI HQ, Los Baños, Philippines, 28 Feb.‐1 March 2005
Dr. Varapong Chamarerk Dr. Yothin Konboon Dr. Boonrat Jongdee Mr. Panya Romyen
Rice Technology Transfer Systems Suwan, South Korea, 28 Aug.‐11 Sept. 2005
Dr. Varapong Chamarerk
Participatory Approaches for Agricultural Research & Extension, IRRI HQ, Los Baños, Philippines, 21 Nov. ‐ 2 Dec. 2005
Ms. Waraporn Wongboon
Participatory Approaches for Agricultural Research & Extension, IRRI HQ, Los Baños, Philippines, 7‐18 Aug. 2006
Mr. Sommai Lertna
Rice Technology Transfer Systems Suwan, South Korea, 20 Aug.‐3 Sept. 2006
Mr. Panya Romyen
35
Output 4 Farmer acceptability and viability of innovative production systems assessed; policymakers and development authorities sensitized on supporting sector needs for wider adoption. CURE’s cooperation with the Thai Department of Agriculture resulted in the development of the first short‐duration KDML backcross derivative, RD33, released on 6 March 2007. This variety is highly tolerant of blast, matures approximately 1 month earlier than KDML 105, and is indistinguishable in quality from KDML. Starting in 2003, there were detailed discussions with the private sector and policymakers regarding the pending release of a new KDML variety, which was used and tested in several CURE trials. B.1. Working Group 2 for submergence‐prone lowlands Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology Faizabad, India Output 1.1 Baseline information on farmer households, cropping practices, constraints, existing data sets, technologies, and recommendations made available. Working Group 2‐Faizabad conducts its research at CURE villages in Faizabad and Siddharthnagar districts, both in the flood‐prone ecology of eastern Uttar Pradesh State. A participatory rural appraisal was conducted to characterize the socioeconomic and biophysical parameters of seven villages (Table 14). A preliminary report of the PRA was published in the Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology 2005 annual report, and basic parameters were reported at the annual CURE Steering Committee meetings. Table 14. Baseline socioeconomic data and biophysical data, CURE villages, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Descriptor Faizabad District
Siddharthnagar District
# of villages surveyed 2 5 % lowland area 40–50 70–90 % adopting improved varieties
95–98 40–50
Traditional varieties 0 Sarya, Bengalia, Jarethawa, Bhainslot, Lalsengar, Dulhinia,Kalanamak, Nebuar, Gethawa
Traditional varieties, average yield (t ha‐1)
0 1.5–2.0
Improved varieties, upland/midland
NDR 359, Sarjoo 52, NDR 97, Arize 6444 (Pro‐Agro‐6444), Arize 6201, Arize 6203, PBH 71, RH10 (all hybrids)
NDR 359, Sarjoo 49, Sarjoo 52 Gorakh Nath, and Lok Nath (research materials)
Improved varieties/research Swarna, Sambha Mahsuri, Sambha Mahsuri, Rupali,
36
materials lowland NDR 8002, NDR 9730018, NDR 9830144, NDR 9830099, NDR 9930111, NDR 96005,
Malaysia, NDR 9730018, NDR 9830144, NDR 9930111, NDR 9830135, NDR 9920116
Improved varieties, yield 3.0–4.0 2.5–3.0
Rice establishment system Primarily transplanting, a few areas have direct seeding
More direct seeding, less transplanting
Fertilizer inputs Traditional varieties: 0 Improved varieties/hybrids: high
Traditional varieties: nominal to nil Improved varieties/hybrids: moderate doses of N
Migration rate Low (local commuting to nonfarm jobs)
Medium from Piprahawa Village (long‐term absences to metropolitan areas & to Persian Gulf); almost nil from Nagwa, Babhani, Khamharia, and Supa Raja villages
The PRA reported that soils are heavy clay to clay loam with neutral pH, and fertility ranges from poor to medium. Runoff from catchments brings nutrients to the lowlands. Faizabad’s farmers apply high rates of nitrogen fertilizer in the form of urea in Faizabad, whereas those in Siddharthnagar apply nominal to low rates. To avoid the risk of losing fertilizers to floods, farmers make applications only when floodwaters recede. Almost all households are landowners, but the largest category has marginal landholding sizes, followed by small‐ and medium‐size holdings. More than one‐quarter of the landholding are in the submergence‐ and flood‐prone lowlands, whereas the remainder of land is in uplands and irrigated midlands. Overall, the region has rice cultivated only in the wet season (June to December) and production requirements vary by topography. Farmers cultivate rice in drought‐prone uplands, irrigated midlands, and drought‐prone or submergence‐prone lowlands, or both, depending on the onset, severity, and distribution of rainfall. Farmers can expect flash floods and stagnant water from one to three times per growing season depending on the land type and amount of rainfall, with erratic rainfall distribution within the season, resulting in an uneven distribution for field crops. The villages are true target locations for flood‐ and submergence‐prone conditions. The lack of submergence‐tolerant varieties is a major constraint to rice productivity in both districts, but preferences for varietal duration differ between the districts. Faizabad’s farmers prefer medium‐duration materials to fit the time window of the rice‐wheat cropping system, whereas farmers in Siddharthnagar prefer medium‐ to long‐duration varieties with good regeneration ability. Transplanting is the preferred crop establishment method in shallow lowlands in both districts where flash‐flooding is a threat. In selected Siddharthnagar villages, farmers’ direct‐seed traditional varieties in uplands as well as in some flash‐flood‐prone lowlands. Traditional and
37
improved varieties/hybrids are established by transplanting in Siddharthnagar’s shallow lowlands. Although improved varieties have made headway, two villages in Siddharthnagar have traditional varieties that constitute 80% of the lowland crops. Output 1.2 Feasible cropping innovations that combine complementary technologies for increasing productivity and reducing risks in rice‐based cropping systems developed and evaluated with farmers, and experiences shared across key sites of the target rainfed environments Detailed targets a. Five elite breeding lines with submergence tolerance with at least two validated CNRM practices
tested with 10 farmers at Faizabad and Rangpur. Yield performance of Sub1 introgression lines Yield performance of the three Sub1 introgression lines (Samba‐Sub1, Swarna‐Sub1, and IR6‐Sub1) was evaluated under normal lowland conditions at NDUAT Faizabad during the wet season of 2007. The yield performance was almost on a par with that of the popular varieties. However, one general observation was about the shattering of grains at maturity in all the Sub1 varieties. Most of the farmers conducting crop and natural resource management and PVS trials also reported grain shattering of Swarna‐Sub1 at maturity. Farmers also observed researchers’ findings that Sub1 is susceptible to stagnant flooding. Swarna‐Sub1 is nonelongating and has short stature, and it almost died completely in NDUAT’s coordinated submergence screening trials in which long‐term stagnation of 50 cm of water was maintained in the field until flowering. To prepare for the 2008 yield trials, NDUAT multiplied the seeds of all three introgression lines. Some 180 kg of Swarna‐Sub1, 150 kg of IR64‐Sub1, and 35 kg of Sambha ‐Sub1 seeds are available (Table 15). Table 15. Yield performance of popular mega‐varieties and their Sub1 introgression lines under Uttar Pradesh conditions (on‐station trial at CRS Masodha, Faizabad, India, wet season, 2007).
Genotype Days to flowering Plant Height (cm)
Yield (t ha–1)
Sambha‐Sub1 120 109 5.26 Sambha 122 108 5.07 Swarna‐Sub1 128 110 5.44 Swarna 125 116 5.66 IR64‐Sub1 93 98 4.26 IR64 96 85 4.15
38
Crop and natural resource management practices to improve rice productivity Working Group 2‐Faizabad tested two sorts of crop management practices that enhance the genetic potential of submergence‐tolerant and nontolerant breeding lines to survive flooded conditions. In addition, CURE’s other working group for submergence‐prone environments at Rangpur, Bangladesh, also developed effective CNRM practices for this ecosystem. Faizabad’s two crop management practices, which are discussed below, are (a) nursery nutrient management and (b) low seeding density/seedling handling. Nursery nutrient management results in healthier seedlings that are better able to withstand flooding after transplanting to the main field. Low seeding density improves seedling vigor in the nursery and, combined with proper timing of seedling transplanting after uprooting from the nursery, the result is better survival of flooding, better crop establishment, and improved rice yields. Both practices enhanced the performance of submergence tolerance of elite breeding lines tested on‐farm in Faizabad and Siddharthnagar districts of eastern Uttar Pradesh. During the one‐year extension of the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project, WG2‐Faizaibad scaled out a package of these practices with 19 varieties to 18 farmers in 12 villages in Faizabad District. Nursery nutrient management to improve seedling survival Two years of tests validated improved nursery nutrient management using a total of five submergence‐tolerant materials in two farmers’ fields in Faizabad District. These tests also showed that improved nursery nutrient management can also optimize the performance of submergence‐tolerant varieties, notably Swarna‐Sub1. Of the treatments tested, the optimal treatment was an application of N60P40Zn20 + farmyard manure at 10 t ha–1. In 2005, two tolerant varieties, NDR 9730018 and NDR 9930116, were seeded in nurseries treated with these practices, and, after 15 days of complete submergence in the main field, these varieties yielded 1.2 and 1.7 t ha–1, respectively, or two and three times the yield of submergence‐susceptible Sambha Mahsuri (0.5 t ha–1). The 2006 on‐farm trials included Swarna‐Sub1 plus Swarna and two other lines (Table 16). One field experienced complete submergence for 15 days, while the other field experienced 7 days of flooding. Improved nursery management increased yields from 38% to 450% compared with the unfertilized control. Swarna‐Sub1 had the lowest yield increase of 38% due to its already high submergence tolerance. However, improved nursery management could optimize Swarna‐Sub1’s yield potential, which was 4.04 t ha–1 in this study. The greatest yield increase of 450% occurred with nontolerant Swarna, which yielded 1.45 t ha–1 with improved management. In other words, nursery nutrient management practices can improve seedling quality of a nontolerant rice variety, which allows farmers to still have a crop under flooded conditions, although at lower yield than with tolerant varieties.
39
Table 16. 2006 on‐farm test, nutrient nursery management, Faizabad. Yield (t ha–1)
Variety/line Unfertilized control
Nursery nutrient mgmt.
Yield increase over unfertilized
control Swarna‐Sub1 2.93 4.04 1.01 (38%) NDR 9730018 2.16 3.71 1.55 (72%) NDR 9930111 3.04 4.35 1.31 (43%) Swarna 0.26 1.45 1.19 (450%) Low seeding density/seedling handling On‐station tests of a low seeding rate of 50 g m–2 in the nursery and immediate transplanting in the main field after uprooting were found to improve seedling survival after flooding. This resulted in better yields compared to a higher density commonly used by farmers who often transplant after a 24‐hour lag following uprooting. The higher seeding densities tested were 100 g m–2 and 150 g m–2. Yields for submergence‐tolerant NDR 9730018 and submergence‐susceptible Swarna improved by 80% and 155%, respectively, by the final year (2006) of the on‐station tests (Table 17). Yield of Swarna‐Sub1 did not improve markedly, apparently because of its already high submergence tolerance. By the time of the one‐year Project extension (2007), WG2‐Faizabad scaled out to farmers a technology package that consisted of a lower seedling density, nursery nutrient management, and improved varieties with submergence tolerance. Table 17. Seedling management, final year’s on‐station test (2006), Faizabad (partial results).
Treatment NDR 9730018 (submergence‐
tolerant)
Swarna‐Sub1 (submergence‐
tolerant)
Swarna (non submergence‐
tolerant) Survival percentage Diff.
from T4 Diff.
from T4 Diff.
from T4 50 g m–2, transplanted immediately after uprooting
50.9 29.9 97.4 4.8 19.9 7.1
50 g m–2, transplaned after 24‐hour lag
46.8 25.8 97.2 4.6 19.2 6.4
150 g m–2, transplanted immediately after uprooting
23.7 2.7 95.9 3.3 10.9 1.9
150 g m–2, transplanted after 24‐hour lag
21.0 – 92.6 – 12.8 –
Yield (t ha–1) 50 g m–2, transplanted immediately after uprooting
2.33 1.04 (80%) 3.82
–0.01 (–0.26%) 0.92
0.56 (155%)
40
50 g m–2, transplanted after 24‐hour lag
2.29 1.0 (77%)
3.78 –0.05 (–1.0%)
0.82 0.46 (127%)
150 g m–2, transplanted immediately after uprooting
1.37 0.08 (6%) 3.85
–0.03 (–0.78) 0.39 0.03 (8%)
150 g m–2, transplanted after 24‐hour lag
1.29 – 3.83 – 0.36 –
PVS identifies candidates for national and state varietal testing programs Through support of the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project, NDUAT was able to test many varieties with good submergence tolerance through participatory varietal selection in farmers’ fields (Table 18). The good performers were nominated for the national All‐India Coordinated Rice Improvement Programme (AICRIP) and for Uttar Pradesh state programs for varietal testing and release (Table 19). By 2005, the AICRIP had approved the NDUAT‐developed variety NDR 8002 for eastern Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, and West Bengal. This variety has moderate submergence tolerance, good disease resistance, excellent yield potential up to 6.5 t ha–1, and good eating quality. Three other products of the NDUAT breeding program were recommended to AICRIP’s Varietal Improvement Committee for release in 2008. There were also 11 other NDUAT nominees at various levels of testing under AICRIP in 2007. For the Uttar Pradesh State Varietal Testing Programme, three varieties were recommended to the State Varietal Improvement Committee (SVRC) for release in 2008, whereas six other nominees were still at various levels of testing. Table 18. NDUAT entries, All‐India Coordinated Rice Improvement Programme.
Variety Characteristics Status States
recommended for release
Yield potential(t ha–1)
NDR 8002
Semidwarf, slender grain, high yield, disease resistant, good cooking quality, moderate submergence tolerance
Released in 2005
Eastern UP, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, and West Bengal
5.0–6.5
NDR 9830017
Late duration, long bold grain, resistance to brown spot and preharvest sprouting (PHS)
Release proposal submitted to Varietal Identification Committee (VIC)
Recommended for Assam and Orissa
4.0–5.0
NDR 9930112
Late duration, long and slender grains, suitable for delayed planting, submergence tolerance, resistant to leaf blast and brown leaf spot (BLS), moderately resistant to sheath rot
Release proposal submitted to VIC
Recommended for Orissa and Gujarat
5.0–6.0
NDR Late duration, long slender grains, good cooking Release Recommended 5.5–6.0
41
9830144 quality, submergence tolerance, resistant to neck blast, sheath blight (ShB), rice tungro virus (RTV), brown planthopper (BPH), and stem borer
proposal submitted to VIC
for Orissa, Chhattisgarh, and Andhra Pradesh
NDR 9930013
Long bold grains, tolerance of soil sodicity, late duration, resistant to leaf blast, brown spot, and stem borer
Final‐year test (AVT2)
– 5.5–6.0
NDR 9930077
Semideepwater, late duration, long slender grains, submergence tolerant, resistant to ShB and white‐backed planthopper (WBPH)
Promoted to final‐year test
– 4.0–5.0
NDR 8011
Late duration, short bold grains, aromatic, resistant to ShB and stem borer
Final‐year test (AVT2)
– 6.0–7.0
NDR 8015
Late duration, short slender grains, aromatic, resistant to BLS, BPH, and PHS
Final‐year test (AVT2)
– 5.5–6.0
NDR 9930111
Late duration, shallow‐water ecology Final‐year test
– 5.5–6.0
NDR 9830099
Semideepwater, late duration, medium bold grains, submergence tolerant, lodging resistant, resistant to bacterial leaf blight (BLB), BLS, and BPH
Promoted to third‐year Advanced Varietal Test
– 5.5–6.0
NDR 9830119
Long slender grains, tolerant of soil sodicity, resistant to leaf blast, neck blast, and PHS
Third‐year test
– 5.0–6.0
NDR 9830145
Late duration, long slender grains, good cooking quality, good head rice recovery, submergence tolerant, resistant to brown spot and WBPH
Promoted to second‐year test (AVT1)
– 5.0–6.0
NDR 9930015
Late duration, long bold grains, tolerant of soil sodicity, resistant to brown spot, BLB, and BPH
Second‐year test
– 5.0–5.5
NDR 9432
Medium duration, long slender grains, good cooking quality, resistant to BLB, BLS, stem borer, and BPH
First‐year Irrigated Varietal Test
– 6.2–6.8
NDGR 105
Deepwater ecology Nominated for 2008 test
– 4.0–4.5
Table 19. NDUAT entries, Uttar Pradesh State Varietal Testing and Release Programme.
Variety Characteristics Status Yield
potential (t ha–1)
NDR 9830132
Late duration, long and bold grains, good submergence tolerance, resistant to leaf blast, neck blast, RTV, and PHS
Release proposal submitted to SVRC
5.5–6.0
NDR 9830144
Late duration, long and slender grains, good cooking quality, submergence tolerance, resistant to neck blast, ShB, RTV, BPH, and stem borer
Release proposal submitted to SVRC
5.8–6.0
NDR Late duration, long and slender grains, suitable for delayed Final‐year 6.5–7.0
42
NDUAT’s varietal output is the result of a collaboration with the Eastern India Shuttle Breeding Network that is able to supply promising materials for testing under the stress‐prone conditions of this submergence‐prone ecosystem. In 2004, 10 submergence‐tolerant lines were tested on‐station and in eight farmers’ fields each in Faizabad and Siddharthnagar districts. Of these, the top performers yielded 4.0–5.0 t ha–1, or a 1.0 t ha–1 advantage over the check varieties. In 2005, six submergence‐tolerant varieties were tested on‐station in five villages in Siddharthnagar District and in two villages in Faizabad District. Yields were better in Faizabad, where flooding was not so severe. The yields results were 4–5 t ha–1 in Faizabad and 2.9–5.0 t ha–1 in Siddharthnagar. The year 2006 brought severe drought to the submergence‐prone ecosystem, which affected the performance of 13 lines tested in five villages in Faizabad and eight lines tested in four villages in Siddharthnagar. Of the 46 participating farmers, only 30 were able to have a crop. Consequently, the farmers with severely affected fields were forced to harvest maturing crops and use them as fodder for cattle. This was the first year for on‐farm tests of Swarna‐Sub1, yielding 2.0–5.5 t ha–1, whereas other lines/varieties yielded 2.8–5.5 t ha–1. Despite the poor growing conditions, farmers were impressed by the performance of surviving lines, especially as other varieties could hardly survive in drought. By 2007, WG2‐Faizabad was able to supply 19 promising lines for scaling out to a total of 100 farmers in five villages each in Siddharthnagar and Faizabad districts, as part of crop management packages validated in the Project. The distributed varieties were found to be promising in previous PVS trials and also included some new materials for farmers’ evaluation.
9930112 planting, submergence tolerance, resistant to leaf blast and BLS, moderate resistance to sheath rot
testing
NDR 9730018
Semidwarf, long slender grains, high yield, disease resistant, excellent submergence tolerance, good cooking quality
Final‐year testing
6.0–6.5
NDKN 3131
Late duration, short bold grains, aromatic, good cooking quality, resistant to sheath rot, sheath blast, and BPH
Final‐year testing
3.2–3.8
NDR 9830135
Late duration, long bold grains, submergence tolerant, resistant to stem borer, WBPH, BLB, and ShB
Release proposal submitted to SVRC
5.2–5.6
NDR 9730025
Late duration, long bold grains, submergence tolerant, resistant to BLB and ShB
First‐year testing
5.8–6.0
NDR 9930015
Late duration, tolerant of soil sodicity First‐year testing
5.5–5.8
NDR 9930024
Medium duration, medium bold grains, submergence tolerance, high yield
Final‐year testing
5.5–6.0
43
b. Three elite genotypes tested in farmers’ fields under deepwater conditions in Uttar Pradesh. More than three elite genotypes for the deepwater ecology were tested in farmers’ fields during two years (2005 and 2006) of the original term of the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project and during the one‐year extension (2007). In 2005, eight lines were tested; in 2006, five lines were evaluated. By the second year of testing, several suitable varieties were identified for nomination to the AICRIP and to the Uttar Pradesh State Varietal Testing Programme. Nominated to AICRIP were NDGR 60, NDGR 85, and NDGR 105, while the UPSVTP entries were NDR 9930056 and NDR 9930148. Of the latter two, NDR 9930056 had been dropped from AICRIP’s testing program. But, because of this variety’s popularity with farmers, it was nominated to the state program. Farmers favored its fine grain and eating quality, elongation and nonlodging characteristics, yield potential (4.0–4.5 t ha–1), and disease resistance. In 2007, WG2‐Faizabad continued its testing of deepwater varieties and validated the following materials in farmers’ fields in two villages: NDGR 105, NDGR 107, NDR 9930016, and NDR 9930111. Delayed transplanting WG2‐Faizabad also identified varieties suitable for delayed transplanting under Uttar Pradesh conditions. By using these varieties, farmers can plant rice later than usual, with reduced yield penalty if rains come late, or, if severe flooding occurs, they can still transplant rice after floodwater recedes. These varieties were transplanted in the first week of August, or about 1 month after normal transplanting. In the 2005 on‐farm test, varieties NDR 96005 and NDR 96006 had a yield loss of only 1.5 t ha–1 under delayed planting, but could still give respectable productivity of 2.6–3.7 t ha–1, or a 26–39% yield decrease from the crop sown at the normal time. In contrast, popular variety Samba Mahsuri had a 49% yield loss under delayed transplanting. Severe drought affected the 2006 on‐farm tests of NDR 9730004 and NDR 96005, and the crop did not reach maturity. Farmers cut the crop at the vegetative stage and fed it to cattle. WG2‐Faizabad tested five varieties alone with two national checks in farmers’ fields again in 2007. Of all varieties tested, NDR 96005 again produced higher yields (4.75 t ha–1) under delayed planting, and it was nominated to AICRIP. Researchers learned that farmers prefer not to plant varieties suitable for delayed transplanting as the yield is lower relative to unsuitable varieties, and they cannot predict whether rains will be delayed. Hence, they will plant their usual popular varieties that are better‐yielding in normal years. However, developing varieties that are adaptable to delayed and erratic rainfall will be a chief subject for future research.
Farmer gets bumper crop in adverse weather year
Despite the severe rains in 2007, a cooperating farmer in Medaurea Kala Village, Ballia District, had a bumper crop with NDR 9730018 that yielded 5.2 t ha–1. At the end of the season, he had 1.5 tons of seed of this variety, which was in demand by about 50 farmers in the nearby flood‐prone areas. The seed will be distributed to farmers during the 2008 wet season under
44
c. One donor with reasonable tolerance of anaerobic conditions during germination, water stagnation, and regeneration ability identified and breeding activities initiated to incorporate tolerance into popular varieties.
In 2006 and 2007, eight and 21 promising lines, respectively, were studied for anaerobic seed germination, that is, germination of direct‐seeded rice under flooded conditions. The protocol called for submerging the lines in 10 to 12 cm of stagnant water to investigate growth and regeneration ability. Lines that emerged from water were selected for an evaluation of their physiological traits, which could lead to breeding activities that could incorporate tolerance into popular varieties. More than 10 lines were promising and could germinate and grow in 10 to 15 cm of standing water. The best of these were Panikekoa and AC1631, with 78% and 69% germination, respectively. Panikekoa has late duration, but can produce good flowering and grain yield. Other promising lines that showed 40–44% germination under anaerobic conditions are NDR 8024, NDR 8022, NDR 9830090, and NDR 9930076. One entry, NDR 9730018, had only 36% germination, but it produced 3.66 g plant–1 grain yield—very close to the best yield of AC1631 (3.97 g plant–1). The findings clearly show that some of these lines can be used as donors for tolerance and anaerobic seed germination in future breeding programs, especially since these traits are required for direct‐seeded flood‐prone areas. NDUAT is planning to start a comprehensive screening program for developing germplasm tolerant of the frequent flood damage that occurs during early seeding to germination of the crop. d. At least one alternative approach for crop establishment validated with farmers. For the submergence‐prone lowlands, this work was carried out by the key site at Rangpur, Bangladesh, which tested early direct‐seeding establishment practices using a drum seeder and lithao. At Faizabad, new nutrient management practices for the nursery were validated for the flood‐prone ecosystem. Although nursery practices are not crop establishment practices, per se, the resulting healthier seedlings were better able to survive and recover from flooding after transplanting, which helped to establish the crop under flooded conditions. These practices, discussed in section “a” above, were particularly useful for improving seedling performance of nontolerant varieties such as Swarna and Samba Mahsuri, which were able to significantly survive flooding and increase yields. The positive effects were also seen in terms of survival and yield of the submergence‐tolerant line NDR 9730018, but not as much with Swarna‐Sub1, which had apparently achieved maximum results due to its already good submergence tolerance. Output 2 Knowledge distilled into decision tools, management principles, and operational guidelines that are extension‐ready; extrapolation domains of improved production systems identified
45
Identifying extrapolation domains for technology scaling‐out In April‐May 2007, an extensive survey was done in eastern Uttar Pradesh to identify extrapolation domains for targeting the scaling out of improved varieties and crop management practices developed under the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project. This scaling out was conducted with the collaboration of the NDUAT extension unit of Krishi Vigan Kandra, Sohaon (KVK Sohaon), the NEFORD NGO, and in some areas with the local governments. The lines selected for scaling out were NDR 9730018, NDR 9930111, and NDR 8002, which were sown as a package of technologies with nursery nutrient management and lower seeding density. The targeted domains for the scaling out were
• CURE villages in Faizabad and Siddharthnagar districts: a total of 35 farmers in eight villages evaluated new germplasm for submergence‐prone areas through PVS baby trials, of which four are new villages; 18 farmers in 12 villages tested new crop management practices integrated with new germplasm.
• Ballia District, Dubhand block: with assistance of a local government official and extensionists of KVK Sohaon, a total of 16 farmers were selected for up‐scaling technologies in a bowl‐shaped diverse flood‐prone ecology of Suraha Taal (Suraha Lake). This area consists of a deepwater rice monoculture area and shallow lowlands where rice is grown in the wet season followed by mixed cropping in the rabi season.
• Ballia District, Sohaon block: with assistance of the before‐mentioned officials and organizations, nine villages were selected at the periphery of the rice‐bowl toposequence for future up‐scaling, but available resources limited participation to only five farmers in 2007.
• Mau District: in collaboration with NEFORD, 23 farmers were selected in nine villages for up‐scaling new technologies.
Reaching out to farmers with seed health training and field days Throughout the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project and during the one‐year extension, WG2‐Faizabad disseminated knowledge of the new technologies to farmers, extensionists, NGOs, and government officials by hosting various field days, training activities, and cross‐site visits. The main activities follow: October 2007: A farmers’ field day and farmers’ cross‐site visits were conducted to showcase the technologies in Faizabad, Siddharthnagar, Ballia, and Mau districts. 28 May 2007: Farmer‐scientist interactions occurred at a farmers’ fair in Mau District attended by 100 farmers; lectures were given by specialists from NDUAT; Directorate of Seed Research, ICAR; Uttar Pradesh state government; and NEFORD. April and November 2006: Two training activities communicated to farmers the benefits of following seed health practices for better crop production. The April training involved about 100 men and women farmers over five days in villages in Siddharthnagar and Faizabad
46
districts. Farmers were taught salt flotation for cleaning seeds for nursery sowing. The November training involved 75 men and women farmers at the Crop Research Station Masodha. They were trained on healthy panicle selection in the field for obtaining good‐quality seeds. They were also trained to rogue fields to remove unwanted plants and to use mixtures to maintain seed purity. 2005: During this year, there was (a) one field day each in Siddharthnagar and Faizabad districts attended by 45 and 35 farmers, respectively, for PVS evaluations. A total of nine extension workers and researchers attended these field days; (b) seed health management training in which 144 farmers each in three villages of Faizabad were trained on seed cleaning, roguing, and postharvest storage; and (c) a farmer‐cooperators’ visit to experimental fields at Crop Research Station Masodha and to Kotwa and Aruwanawa villages, where they also observed technology demonstrations. Reaching farmers through publications WG2‐Faizabad produced an extension bulletin in the local Hindi dialect for eastern Uttar Pradesh farmers. The bulletin, based on research conducted under the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project, is “Successful cultivation of rice in flood‐prone areas: modern technology” (Barh Grast kshetro mein dhan ki safal kheti: Aaadhunik takneek). Output 3 Capacity of NARES strengthened for implementing integrative and participatory technology development and dissemination WG2‐Faizabad achieved its objectives in building staff capacity in farmer participatory research as well as in upgrading scientists’ skills to develop products that will be farmer‐acceptable. At the Project outset, the Working Group leader and key site coordinator attended a participatory methods workshop at the 2004 CURE Steering Committee meeting, while field staff received skills training in these methods in workshops at IRRI HQ in 2005 and 2006. Six scientists were trained in advances in marker‐assisted selection, which can reduce the amount of time in breeding acceptable rice varieties so farmers can receive the benefits of improved rice productivity much sooner. Another workshop provided hands‐on training in methods to elicit farmers’ perspectives for breeding farmer‐acceptable rice varieties. Two cross‐site visits to other CURE key sites in India and Bangladesh in 2005 and 2006 allowed scientists to exchange ideas for developing technologies for unfavorable rice environments. The specific training activities are highlighted in Table 20.
47
Table 20. NARES capacity‐building activities, CURE WG2‐Faizabad. Training course WG2‐Faizabad participants
Innovative Research Methods and Strategies for Conducting Research in Rainfed Environments Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand 4 June 2004
Dr. Abdelbagi Ismail, Working Group leader; Dr. P.C. Ram, key site coordinator
Advances in Marker‐Assisted Selection Workshop IRRI HQ, Los Baños, Philippines 21‐24 Feb. 2005
Dr. O.P. Verma, Dr. V.N. Singh, Dr. P.N. Singh, Dr. Uma Singh, Dr. P.C. Ram, Dr. J.L. Dwivedi
Planning Plant Breeding Programs for Impact IRRI HQ, Los Baños, Philippines 21‐24 Feb. 2005
Dr. V.N.Singh
Project Management Workshop IRRI HQ, Los Baños, Philippines 28 Feb. 2005
Dr. J.L. Dwivedi, Dr. P.C. Ram, Dr. P.N. Singh, Dr. Uma Singh, Dr. V.N. Singh, Dr. O.P. Verma
Cross‐site visits to India and Bangladesh, and Review and Planning meeting of CURE & BMZ Project NDUAT, Faizabad, India; CRRI, Cuttack, India; Dhaka, Bangladesh; and BRRI Regional Station, Rangpur, Bangladesh 15‐20 Sept. 2005
Dr. P.C. Ram, Dr. B.B. Singh (vice‐chancellor, NDUAT)
Participatory Approaches for Agricultural Research and Extension IRRI HQ, Los Baños, Philippines 21 Nov.‐2 Dec. 2005
Dr. R.P. Singh
Showcase of diverse rice‐growing environments and boro rice in Bangladesh Rural Development Academy, Bogor, and BRRI Regional Station, Rangpur 10‐11 March 2006
Dr. P.C. Ram, Dr. B.B. Singh, Dr. T.B. Singh
Participatory Approaches for Agricultural Research and Extension IRRI HQ, Los Baños, Philippines 7‐18 Aug. 2006
Dr. Uma Singh
Output 4 Farmer acceptability and viability of innovative production systems assessed; policymakers and development authorities sensitized on supporting sector needs for wider adoption. WG2‐Faizabad ascertained the farmer acceptability and viability of new technologies through its extensive farmer participatory experiments, either involving PVS for new lines/varieties or in testing new crop management practices in farmers’ fields. As a result, the national and state varietal testing and release programs were evaluating more than NDUAT lines/varieties in 2007 (see Output 1.2). To identify these candidate materials, the PVS involved 16 farmers in 2004, seven villages in 2005, and 46 farmers in 2006. By the Project extension year (2007), the Working Group was able to scale out 19 promising lines to a total of 100 farmers in five villages each in
48
Siddharthnagar and Faizabad districts. To enhance the genetic potential of the improved varieties, new crop management practices were validated in two farmers’ fields in the 2005 and 2006 cropping seasons. The component management practices consisting of low seeding density and seedling handling practices in the nursery, and nutrient management in the main field, were packaged for scaling out with the new varieties in 2007. In addition to the farmer participatory work at CURE villages, the Working Group engaged in a collaboration with the NEFORD NGO to disseminate seeds of NDUAT‐developed lines/varieites to farmers from 2004 through 2006 and also in the Project extension year. The NDUAT extension unit of Krishi Vigan Kandra Sohaon also participated with the scaling out in 2007. NEFORD documented farmers’ perceptions of the new lines’ performance under localized patterns of drought and flooding, and for the biophysical parameters of the toposequence. The discussions revealed gaps in farmers’ knowledge about, and lack of access to, the kinds of technologies available for flood‐prone areas (which the NGO was simultaneously addressing through the CURE scaling out). These farmers are also resource‐poor in terms of financial support, insufficient facilities for soil tests, inability to afford inputs when needed, and lacking supplemental irritation to mitigate drought, and they are often vulnerable to marketing structures that favor local traders. B.2. Working Group 2 for submergence‐prone lowlands Rangpur Regional Station, Bangladesh Rice Research Institute Rangpur, Bangladesh Output 1.1 Baseline information on farmer households, cropping practices, constraints, existing data sets, technologies, and recommendations made available A baseline survey was conducted to characterize the biophysical and socioeconomic aspects of two CURE villages in the flood‐prone lowlands of Rangpur District. Another baseline study on the indigenous double‐transplanting system (bolon) surveyed 200 farmers in five villages of three northern districts of Bangladesh—Rangpur, Lalmonirhat, and Nilpharmi. The latter was a collaboration of social scientists at BRRI and IRRI, and the results were presented to the conference of the International Association of Agricultural Economists in 2006. Bangladesh has three predominant rice‐growing seasons. The traditional wet‐season (monsoon) crop is T. aman, grown from mid‐June through November/December. The dry‐season crop, boro, is grown from November/December to March/April. The third or early‐monsoon crop is aus, grown from about March through July. The season that is spread from late boro through aus is known as braus. Flooding from heavy rains from mid‐July through September is the major risk for the T. aman rice crop. To get tall, healthy seedlings, farmers mostly practice an indigenous double‐transplanting system of crop establishment called bolon. After seedlings reach a certain height,
49
they are transferred to another seedbed at a higher density in order to become even taller, and they are then more likely to survive flooding when finally transferred to the main field. CURE’s research showed that although rice cultivation through bolon involved a higher cost from labor, both rice yield and net returns were higher than with the single‐transplanting system (Table 21).2 Because of its technical efficiency found in the 2004 study, farmers were expanding their bolon holdings from the lowlands to medium lands and highlands. The report recommended that researchers further refine this system with better rice varieties and crop management practices. The only disadvantages of bolon were additional costs of land preparation and transplanting seedlings, poor fodder quality of bolon‐produced rice straw, and less convenience for farmers with large landholdings due to the effort required to transplant twice. Table 21. Difference in yield and other production parameters between bolon (double‐transplanting) and naicha (single‐transplanting) systems.
Parameters Bolon (double‐transplanting)
Naicha (single‐transplanting)
PercentageDifference
Yield (t ha‐1) 4.00 3.79 5.5 Labor cost (US$ ha‐1) 107 104 3.2 Pesticide cost (US$ ha‐1) 5.5 7.3 ‐24.7 Gross cost (US$ ha‐1) 208 204 1.9 Net return (US$ ha‐1) 237 216 9.4 Source: Azad and Hossain (2006). Farmers have expanded beyond the T. aman crop to boro rice, that is, modern high‐yielding rice varieties grown in the dry or winter season. Shallow tube wells provide reliable dry‐season irrigation. Higher and more stable yields for boro rice are distinctly advantageous to farmers compared with the higher risk and lower yields of the monsoon‐season rice, particularly in deepwater areas. However, proper varieties for boro are not available and farmers rely on using the same varieties for T. aman. Cold weather during nursery establishment and transplanting can kill seedlings and result in poor crop establishment. CURE is thus working to develop suitable varieties and nursery management practices to maintain healthy seedlings that survive cold stress. In terms of food security, farm households face hungry months known as monga when annual food stocks are depleted in the preharvest months of October and November. Wage‐laboring opportunities for landless households are also nil as this is a slack period for agricultural field work. This is also a time of financial instability for owners of small‐ to medium‐size landholdings, as they borrow from moneylenders at predatory rates to buy food. The Working Group launched a research program to mitigate the effects of monga by establishing rice earlier so harvest will occur in the food‐short period, and also to increase opportunities for wage laboring in fields. The crop can be established earlier by direct‐seeding with a drum seeder
2 Azad MAS, Hossain M. 2006. Double transplanting: economic assessment of an indigenous technology for submergence avoidance in the flood‐prone rice environment in Bangladesh. Paper presented at the International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, 12‐18 Aug.
50
under puddled conditions or by the human‐powered lithao for dry soil conditions. Also, an early‐duration variety, BRRI dhan 33, can permit an earlier harvest. The early rice harvest provides for a more timely sowing of a potato sequence crop, which avoids disease and cuts down on spraying costs. Taking monga mitigation to its fullest extent, a maize crop can be either relayed in potato or sown after the potato harvest, providing farm households with an intensified system of three annual crops on the same plot of ground. Output 1.2 Cultivars and crop and natural resource management options developed and validated with farmers for submergence‐prone areas Rangpur is in northwestern Bangladesh, which has three predominant growing seasons, each of which has its own cropping requirements based on climate and water availability. The traditional wet‐season crop, T. aman, is grown during the monsoon season that extends from mid‐June through November/December. The dry‐season crop, boro, which is irrigated by tube wells, is from November/December to about mid‐June. A third crop, aus, is possible by taking advantage of the early monsoon from about March through July/August. In some cases, farmers may combine the irrigated season of boro with the rainfed potential of aus, for the braus season. Detailed outputs a. Five elite breeding lines with submergence tolerance with at least two validated CNRM practices
tested with 10 farmers at Faizabad and Rangpur. On‐farm validation of Swarna‐Sub1 During the Project’s one‐year extension, WQG2‐Rangpur partnered with nine NGOs to validate the new submergence‐tolerant variety Swarna‐Sub1 in widespread tests across flash‐flood‐prone areas of northwestern Bangladesh. Seed was distributed to 114 farmers in eight districts, which allowed farmers and researchers to evaluate Swarna‐Sub1 under the kinds of natural flooding that can be expected in this ecosystem. Together with the on‐farm validation at WG2’s sister site in Faizabad, India, a total of 139 farmers tried the new variety that was developed to survive and recover from 2 weeks of flash‐flooding (Table 22). Table 22. Participating NGOs in WG2‐Rangpur’s on‐farm validation of Swarna‐Sub1, 2007 T. aman season.
# Participating NGOs
Districts of operation
Swiss‐funded IC‐LEAF—partner NGOs 1. SOLIDARITY Kurigram 2. ZIBIKA Lalmonirhat 3. SERP Nilphamari 4. BRIF Nilphamari 5. Uddyog Gaibandhi
51
6. NDP Sirajganj 7. Social Equality for
Effective Development (SEED)
Alalchar
8. WAVE Foundation Chuadhanga
Kurigram, Patuakhali, Noakhali
EC‐FosHol—partner NGO 9. Action Aid Kurigram,
Patuakhali, Noakhali
In Bangladesh, the tests showed that Swarna‐Sub1 could survive flash flooding of various durations and could still produce good yields relative to areas that were flood‐free. Swarna‐Sub1 averaged 4.58 t ha–1 in flood‐free areas, which served as a check for comparison with the variety’s performance in flooded areas. When the variety was subjected to a single submergence lasting 5 to 9 days, Swarna‐Sub1 yielded 3.88 t ha–1 or only a 15% (–0.7 t ha–1) yield reduction. In areas receiving two submergence events lasting a total of 2 to 14 days, Swarna‐Sub1 yielded 3.76 t ha–1, or a decrease of only 17% (–0.82 t ha–1). In a few areas that received three submergence events lasting for a total of 3 to 10 days, the variety yielded 3.51 t ha–1, or only a 23% decrease (–1.07 t ha–1). Furthermore, qualitative data collected from 13 participating farmers showed that they were impressed they could still have a crop despite the extent of flash‐floods that would usually set back their production. When floodwaters covered their fields, farmers were first skeptical that Swarna‐Sub1 would survive. They were surprised to observe that Swarna‐Sub1 survived much better than their usual variety BR11, and it went on to have good tillering and panicle production. Even in cases when BR11 appeared to do well in the field, farmers found that Swarna‐Sub1 had much better yields when they could measure the difference at harvest. Although Swarna‐Sub1 performed well under flash‐flood conditions, the variety was damaged in more severe flooding for which it was not developed. These were cases in which flood currents were strong, stagnant water inundated the fields for up to 1 month, and there were high amuonts of sand/silt deposits in fields. Scientists’ next goal is to develop varieties that can withstand longer‐term submergence. Improved practices for bolon double‐transplanting system Farmers use an indigenous double‐transplanting system, bolon, that is adapted to the seasonal natural flooding conditions of northern Bangladesh. The process of transplanting seedlings in an intermediate field before final transplanting in the main field allows farmers to manipulate seedlings to get a taller plant to survive floods, and it also affords some flexibility in timing transplanting for the recession of floodwaters. WG2‐Rangpur’s research in farmers’ fields as
52
well as continued on‐station work developed new management practices that could improve bolon. The tests usually involved BR 11, as it is a popular variety with farmers, and later Swarna‐Sub1. In addition, preliminary yield trials identified new cultivars that might be suitable for improved rice performance in bolon. A 2006 test of a package of improved bolon management practices for the main field was conducted in four farmers’ fields at Kishamaot Habu village. Swarna‐Sub1 and BR11 averaged 4.9 t ha–1 or a 1 t ha–1 increase (25%) compared with farmers’ usual bolon practices that could attain 3.9 t ha–1. The package called for transplanting 30‐day‐old seedlings (versus the farmers’ practice of 60‐day‐old seedlings) in the main field at a spacing of 20 × 20 cm with two to three seedlings per hill. A fertilizer regime of urea, triple superphosphate (TSP), muriate of potash (MP), and gypsum was applied. A 2005 test of a similar package in five farmers’ fields in Tampat and Dorshana villages, using only BR11, gave similar results. Farmers were able to achieve a 7% yield increase to 4.1 t ha–1 with improved management, compared with 3.9 t ha–1 under their own management. The package was the same, except that nutrient management consisted of a basal application of diammonium phosphate (DAP) and applications of urea supergranule (USG) or Guti urea (GU) after transplanting. WG2‐Rangpur also validated new nursery management practices in seven farmers’ fields in 2006 for improving rice performance in bolon. These practices resulted in good‐quality seedlings that were able to achieve higher yields than farmers’ usual bolon. The practices involved a lower seeding rate of 50 g m–2 and a nutrient management package of N60P30Zn20 + farmyard manure (FYM) at a 10 t ha–1 + Furadan (carbofuran) at 10 kg ha–1. Six farmers were able to achieve a yield of 4.8 t ha–1 by using good‐quality seedlings with BR11, or a 0.6 t ha–1 increase above the 4.2 t ha–1 yield achieved with farmersʹ bolon. Swarna‐Sub1 achieved a 4.9 t ha–1 yield when transplanted with good‐quality seedlings, compared with 4.7 t ha–1 with the farmers’ usual practice. In on‐station work, WG2‐Rangpur identified three advanced BRRI lines that could yield 0.8 to 1.2 t ha–1 more than the farmers’ popular variety BR11 in the bolon system. Furthermore, these lines could obtain at least 4.0 t ha–1 or more, whereas BR11 could achieve only 3.2 t ha–1 in these tests. These lines have 58–64‐cm seedling height, or 7–13 cm taller than BR11, and their height matches lowland floodwater levels. In addition, the 161–164‐day duration is comparable with that of BR11. The lines BR4970‐107‐20‐3, BR4973‐16‐1‐4, and BR4973‐19‐3‐4‐4 were chosen from a test of 16 advanced lines and BR11 and Swarna‐Sub1 checks. Cold‐tolerant technologies for boro establishment Farmers’ adoption of shallow tube well irrigation allows them to expand their rice coverage to the dry season when low temperatures can adversely affect the time of crop establishment during the coldest months (December to February) of the year in northwest Bangladesh. Furthermore, rice direct seeded by a drum seeder allows for earlier crop establishment during the cold period. A 2005 on‐station test determined that the “precold” period during the first week of December increased yield by at least 12% over direct seeding during the cold and
53
postcold periods. Furthermore, the precold establishment and wet direct‐seeded rice (DSR) by a drum seeder shortened crop duration by about 1 week, which could allow time for sowing a post‐boro crop known as aus or braus. For farmers who chose to transplant rice, a 2006 on‐station test identified two IRRI lines that performed well when seeded in a nursery in early January and transplanted in the main field 1 month later. The lines (IR55274‐B‐7‐3‐3‐3 and IR73691‐14‐1) had the lowest cold‐related crop losses of 20% and 12%, respectively, and gave the highest yields of 4.11 and 5.00 t ha–1, respectively. These yields were 25–50% higher than that of BRRI improved varieties that yielded less than 3.7 t ha–1. A total of 17 entries and three checks were evaluated. b. Three elite genotypes tested in farmers’ fields under deepwater conditions in Uttar Pradesh WG2’s key site at Faizabad, India, performed this research for deepwater conditions in Uttar Pradesh. Please refer to the WG2‐Faizabad section for results of this research. c. One donor with reasonable tolerance of anaerobic conditions during germination, water stagnation,
and regeneration identified and breeding activities initiated to incorporate tolerance into popular varieties
WG2‐Rangpur identified landrace Jati Balam as a potential donor source for breeding tolerance of rice for medium stagnant water conditions. Jati Balam was among 166 advanced lines/landraces screened at stagnant‐water depths of 30–40 cm after submergence in flash‐flood conditions, 30–40 cm without prior submergence, and a 5‐cm depth with submergence (check). Jati Balam performed well under all three scenarios. This is a significant finding, as researchers attempt to expand their investigation of submergence tolerance to longer periods beyond 2‐week flash‐flood conditions. The materials tested included 62 local landraces from different submergence‐prone districts of Bangladesh, 14 lines from BRRI, 84 lines from IRRI, and five checks: FR13A, BR5, BR11, Swarna‐Sub1, and Swarna. In addition to its work on rice tolerance of stagnant water, WG2‐Rangpur also conducted extensive screening on other sources of rice tolerance of flash‐flooding. A preliminary yield trial in 2006 screened 38 advanced lines, two resistant checks (FR13A and Swarna‐Sub1), and two susceptible checks (BR5 and Swarna). Nine IRRI lines were found to have a 97–100% survival rate, compared with Swarna‐Sub1 (94%) and FR13A (98%). These lines are IR72015‐4‐CPA‐3‐1‐3‐1, IR70210‐38‐CPA‐2‐1‐1, IR70181‐3‐PMI‐1‐UBN‐1‐B‐1‐1, IR70181‐32‐PMI‐1‐1‐4‐2, IR69502‐6‐SRN‐3‐UBN‐1‐4‐2, IR69502‐6‐SRN‐3‐UBN‐1‐B‐1‐2, IR78533‐30‐2‐1, IR78905‐105‐1‐2‐4, and IR78875‐131‐B‐2‐1. This screening was preceded by a 2005 PYT that screened 22 entries and a 2004 PYT that screened 10 IRRI lines. In 2005, the nine entries, IR66036‐3B‐12‐2‐B, IR66036‐3B‐13‐2‐B, IR67518‐B‐11‐2‐B, IR67518‐B‐1‐3‐B, IR75407‐R‐R‐R‐R‐5, IR75407‐R‐R‐R‐R‐7, IR75407‐R‐R‐R‐R‐8, IR75407‐R‐R‐R‐R‐10, and IR75407‐R‐R‐R‐R‐10, out of 22 lines tested, were selected based on green color, good survival
54
percentage, and stunted growth at stressed conditions after 10 days of submergence. These entries elongated much less than the check after water was drained from the field. The nine lines showed increased plant height of 13–22 cm compared to resistant check FR13A (21 cm) and Swarna‐Sub1 (11 cm). Local landraces (37–58 cm) Gheegog, Hogla, Sadamota, Kajalsail, and Moulata, and susceptible check BR5 lodged because of their elongation character after draining the water. Moreover, BR11, BRRI dhan32, Swarna (local check), and the advanced line BR6004 had increased plant height of 34, 29, 26, and 33 cm, respectively. The selected nine entries had a 76–88% survival rating, except for IR67518‐B‐1‐3‐B (71%), compared with resistant check FR13A (84%) and Swarna‐Sub1 (92%). Susceptible check BR5 had only a 12% survival rating. Local landraces and other entries survived 37% to 71%, except Sadamota (77%). The selected nine lines matured 16–20 days earlier than Swarna‐Sub1 and the others, and this was similar to FR13A. Moreover, these entries showed 4 to 6 days’ more growth duration than BR6004. Four entries, IR66036‐3B‐12‐2‐B, IR67518‐B‐11‐2‐B, IR67518‐B‐1‐3‐B, and IR75407‐R‐R‐R‐R‐10, produced higher grain yield (1.82–2.19 t ha–1) than FR13A (1.80 t ha–1) and lower than Swarna‐Sub1 (3.08 t ha–1). Advanced line BR6004 showed a 47% survival rate, but this line produced a yield (3.05 t ha–1) similar to Swarna‐Sub1 because of good recovery after water was drained from the field. d. At least one alternative approach for crop establishment validated with farmers WG2‐Rangpur has developed an effective, alternative crop establishment practice that diversifies the rice‐based cropping system for year‐round production while reducing food shortages and providing wage‐earning opportunities for landless laborers. The new system was developed to mitigate monga, which is the food‐short and slack employment period from late September/early October to mid‐November right before the T. aman rice harvest. At this time, owners of medium‐sized farms have to borrow from moneylenders at unfavorable rates to secure cash for buying food, while landless laborers have few opportunities for agricultural work in the fields of maturing rice. WG2‐Rangpur has developed new direct‐seeding establishment systems that sow rice by mid‐June, or 3 to 4 weeks earlier than by the traditional transplanting practices. Consequently, rice is harvested at monga, which provides food to landowners and gives wage‐earning opportunities for laborers in these fields. The earlier rice harvest provides an early seeding of potato as a sequence crop, which also provides employment to agricultural workers who do field tasks. Farmers can either sow maize as a relay crop in potato or plant a separate maize crop after the potato harvest. The intensified system allows farmers to grow three crops on a single piece of ground year‐round. What technologies allow farmers to sow an earlier T. aman rice crop? The Working Group introduced (1) wet direct seeding by a drum seeder in puddled soil in medium‐high lands, and in irrigated/sufficient rainwater conditions, and (2) dry direct seeding by a lithao on medium‐high lands and upper terraces under rainfed and water‐scarce situations. Farmers can use these technologies to sow the popular long‐duration variety BR11 by mid‐June, or else they can use a short‐duration variety, such as BRRI dhan 33, with usual transplanting practices to establish the crop by late June.
55
WG2‐validated the rice‐potato‐maize system in 23 farmers’ fields during the 2006‐07 cropping season in Tampat, Dorshona, Kishamot Habu, and Changmari villages. In addition, a local NGO, Udyonkur Seba Sangstha, scaled out these cropping systems in Nilpharmari District, achieving favorable farmers’ responses, as dcoumented in a March 2007 qualitative impact assessment. WG2‐Rangpur estimates that this system is suitable for 107,000 ha of high and medium lands in the monga‐affected districts of Rangpur, Kurigram, Lalmonirhat, Nilphamari, and Gaibandha. A qualitative impact assessment conducted in March 2007 determined that farmers found several economic advantages to this new system:
• Farmers can sell rice when prices are 3–4 Tk kg–1 higher because of seasonal shortages. • Likewise, farmers can sell straw when prices are higher. • Owners of large‐ and medium‐sized land areas can employ rural laborers at the time of
year when wage rates are lower. • Numbers of sprayings to control potato blight decline from 12–15 per season to about 2–
5, as early‐sown potato avoids major disease outbreaks. WG2‐Rangpur’s economic analysis, based on 2005‐06 results, showed that rice‐potato‐maize was the most productive of various sequence cropping patterns tested at the key site. Using a rice equivalent yield (REY) concept based on commodity prices, rice‐potato‐maize output could give an income that would be equivalent to a 20.3 t ha–1 rice yield that is unachievable under current technological practices for growing rice alone (Table 23). This cropping pattern is twice as productive as two rice crops sequenced over the T. aman‐boro seasons. The second most productive was rice‐potato‐maize, with a REY of 20.2 t ha–1, which is also twice as productive as the rice‐rice‐fallow sequence. The third most productive was rice‐potato‐mungbean. Table 23. Various cropping sequences tested at the BRRI Regional Station, Rangpur.
Treatment T. aman rice yield (t ha–1)
Potato yield (t ha–1)
Boro mungbean/maize (t ha–1)
Rice equivalent yield (t ha–1)
Rice‐potato‐maize 3.6 14 10.3 20.3 Rice‐potato‐relay maize 3.6 14 9.3 20.2 Rice‐potato‐mungbean 3.6 14 0.3 14.9 Rice‐rice‐fallow 3.6 – 6.5 10.1 In the 2006‐07 cropping season, WG2‐Rangpur fine‐tuned this cropping system by using a short‐duration potato, Patroness, and two high‐quality maize varieties, NK40 and Pacific 984. The results (Table 24) almost doubled the REY of rice‐potato‐maize from the previous year’s study, showing that maize variety can be a productivity factor in this system. Whether maize was relayed or planted solo after potato, the system sown with maize variety NK40 achieved a slightly higher REY than the system sown with Pacific 984. Regardless, the diversified system gave a significantly higher REY than continuous rice.
56
Table 24. System productivity, early rice–short‐duration potato (Patroness) and maize cropping patterns, Rangpur District, Bangladesh.
Cropping pattern and maize variety
Rice equivalentyield (t ha–1)
Rice‐potato‐relay maize (NK40) 38.1 Rice‐potato‐maize (NK40) 36.4 Rice‐potato‐relay maize (Pacific 984) 34.8 Rice‐potato‐maize (Pacific 984) 34.1 Rice‐rice‐fallow 13.2 Furthermore, the economic benefits of these mitigating monga cropping patterns can radiate throughout the social system and can also improve relationships between social classes, farmers reported (Table 25). Owners of medium‐ and large‐sized landholdings could provide jobs to agricultural laborers, and these farmers could also lend rice to their needy relatives. Also, the medium landowners reported that the new system reduced their debt load from having to borrow money at high interest rates for purposes of buying rice during monga. Members of this middle class appreciated the savings because they also incurred debts for supporting their children’s education. Table 25. Social structure of monga, Rangpur District, Bangladesh.
Landholding category
Landholdingsize (ha)
% of population
Food security status
Large (wealthy) 1.0–2.0 10 Secure Medium 0.50–0.60 20 Vulnerable 2–4 months Agricultural laborers 0 25 Purchase food Nonagricultural laborers 0 45 Purchase food Output 2 Knowledge distilled into decision tools, management principles, and operational guidelines that are extension‐ready; extrapolation domains of improved production systems identified. Farmers’ group approach to develop/scale out technologies WG2‐Rangpur used a farmers’ group approach based on the nongovernmental organizations’ farmer field school (FFS) model for the purpose of testing technologies for developing management guidelines, and for scaling out the technologies in the Project extension year. Through this model, selected farmers serve as resource persons in the community through which management principles of the new technologies are also introduced to interested neighboring farmers. The first year of the Project was devoted to group formation and familiarizing farmers with new technologies in on‐station experimental fields. Full‐fledged on‐farm trials took place in 2005 and 2006. By the third year, this approach developed and/or trained farmers in the following technologies:
57
• Improved nursery management involving a low seeding rate and fertilizer management for producing good‐quality seedlings that have better chances of survival under flooded conditions.
• Wet direct‐seeding by a drum seeder that improved yield and increased panicles per unit area compared with transplanted rice (TPR), although Swarna‐Sub1 performed well under either practice.
• Improved bolon (double transplanting) practices consisting of a low seeding rate and nutrient management practices combined with improved varieties that greatly increased rice productivity compared with farmers’ usual practice.
• Quality seed health management practices, such as panicle selection and seed cleaning by hand, that produced modest yield increases.
• Mitigating hungry months (monga) by direct‐seeding popular variety BR11 from 1 to 15 June or the early‐maturing variety BRRI dhan33 established 25‐30 June by either DSR or TPR, which allows an early rice harvest during seasonal rice shortages and a more timely sowing of a nonrice crop for better performance in the boro season.
• Raised‐bed establishment practices for an improved postrice wheat crop, due to better field drainage, compared with level‐bed establishment.
• Sowing the early‐maturing mungbean variety BARI Mung6 for good yield and good prices during seasonal shortages when sown in a rice‐wheat‐mungbean system; later‐duration varieties yield lower but have more advantages as a green manure.
Seed health management training for production of good‐quality seed Extensive training was conducted to instill the principles of seed health management so the farmers could raise pure, good‐quality rice seeds that could improve yields. On 11‐14 July 2005, 10 farmers from Rangpur and 20 from the Satkhira satellite site attended this training at the Rural Development Academy (RDA), Bogra, for implementing these practices in the following T. aman main (wet) season. Follow‐up training involving 56 farmers and two NGO staff members occurred on 26‐27 Dec. 2005, and another training involved 30 farmers and 40 government staff members on 30‐31 Dec. 2005. Refresher training was given to 14 women farmers in two villages on 25 May 2006 so they could fulfill their own seed needs, in addition to receiving training on best management options for raising of good‐quality seedlings. Promoting technologies through farmers’ field days In addition to developing and disseminating technologies through the farmers’ group approach, WG2‐Rangpur also conducted field days to reach the widest possible audience of farmers, government officials, and nongovernmental organizations working throughout northwestern Bangladesh. In many cases, local print and electronic media representatives were invited to publicize the technologies to an even wider audience. In 2005, a total of 181 participants attended field days on improved crop management practices on 28 March, 17 June, 12 October, and 26 August. In 2006, a total of 232 participants were counted at six field days and
58
two field visits. In 2007, training of trainers that involved government officials, extension personnel, and NGOs was conducted, as will be discussed in Output 4. WG2‐Rangpur has also prepared a pamphlet for eventual publication on monga mitigation through early T. aman rice production and crop diversification to create work opportunities and improve food security in the greater Rangpur region of Bangladesh. This pamphlet will document the management principles so that the information will be available to a wide audience in the postproject period. In this way, the targeted audience can still benefit from the research progress made from this Project. Output 3 Capacity of NARES strengthened for implementing integrative and participatory technology development and dissemination. WG2‐Rangpur staff and associated researchers at the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI) were provided with numerous training activities for implementing farmer participatory research and for upgrading skills in plant breeding that could be applied to unfavorable environments. Familiarization with farmer participatory methods occurred at the Project outset at the 2004 CURE Steering Committee meeting in Ubon, Thailand, and specific skills training involved staff members at the Participatory Approaches for Agricultural Research and Extension at IRRI HQ. The key site at BRRI Regional Station, Rangpur, also hosted a familiarization tour of boro cropping systems on 10‐11 March 2006 for many CURE Steering Committee members and working group leaders following the annual CURE Steering Committee meeting in Dhaka. The tour was especially instructive for collaborators from Southeast Asian countries that were unfamiliar with technology developments in South Asia, and it stimulated fruitful discussions to cross‐fertilize ideas between collaborators of both major regions. Specific training activities follow in Table 26. Table 26. Building NARES capacity, CURE WG2‐Rangpur, Bangladesh.
Training course/activity WG2‐Rangpur participants Innovative Research Methods and Strategies for Conducting Research in Rainfed Environments Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand 4 June 2004
Dr. Abdelbagi Ismail, Working Group leader; Dr. M.A. Mazid, key site coordinator
Advances in Marker‐Assisted Selection Workshop, IRRI HQ, Los Baños, Philippines 21‐24 Feb. 2005
Mr. M.A.Akhlasur Rahman
Project Management Workshop IRRI HQ, Los Baños, Philippines 28 Feb. 2005
Dr. Helal Uddin Ahmed, Dr. A.K.G.M. Enamul Haque, Dr. Md Enamul Hoque, Dr. N.H. Karim, Mr. Md. Ibrahim Khalil, Dr. Md. A.M. Mazid, Mr. Akhlasur Rahman, Dr. M.A. Salam
Field Visit to India and Bangladesh & Review & Planning Meetings of BMZ & CURE Faizabad and Cuttack, India; Dhaka, Bangladesh 15‐21 Sept. 2005
Dr. M.A. Mazid, Dr. Helal Uddin Ahmed, Dr. M. Serajul Islam
59
Leadership Course for Asian Women in Agriculturel Research & Development IRRI HQ, Los Baños, Philippines 7‐18 Nov. 2005
Ms. Shamina Akter
Participatory Approaches for Agricultural Research & Extension IRRI HQ, Los Baños, Philippines 21 Nov.‐2 Dec. 2005
Mr. Biswajit Karmakar
Showcase of diverse rice‐growing environments and boro rice in Bangladesh Rural Development Academy, Bogor, and BRRI Regional Station, Rangpur 10‐11 March 2006
Dr. M.A. Mazid (host), Dr. M.A. Baqui
Participatory Approaches for Agricultural Research & Extension IRRI HQ, Los Baños, Philippines 7‐18 Aug. 2006
Dr. Md. Abdul Mannan Akhand
Output 4 Farmer acceptability and viability of innovative production systems assessed; policymakers and development authorities sensitized on supporting sector needs for wider adoption. Raising public officials’ and NGO representatives’ awareness With a view to raising government officials’ and nongovernmental organizations’ representatives’ awareness about supporting sector needs for wider adoption, WG2‐Rangpur hosted familiarization tours of the developed technologies. A highlight was a visit of Mr. M. K. Anwar, Honorable Minister of Agriculture, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, to the BRRI Regional Station, Rangpur, on 11 May 2006. He was accompanied by Dr. Mahiul Haque, director general of BRRI and the 2006 chair of the CURE Steering Committee; other guests were regional‐level government officials, representatives of NGOs, and farmers. The guests participated in the crop cutting of boro rice established by a drum seeder in addition to a tour of the Rangpur regional station’s activities. WG2‐Rangpur is a partner in the Northwestern Focal Area Forum (FAF), which serves as a communication platform for NGOs, agricultural development organizations, and the private sector to identify farmers’ technology needs and to work toward further efforts in up‐scaling. Through the forum, WG2‐Rangpur is able to establish the kinds of linkages with organizations that can provide feedback on farmers’ technology needs and that can disseminate technologies throughout northwestern Bangladesh. This organization plays a key role as a supporting sector for wider adoption. Among the groups that have collaborated with WG2‐Rangpur are the NGOs Uddoy Unkur Seba Sangstha (USS), Thangamara Mahjla Sabuj Sangstha (TMSS), Rangpur‐Dinajpur Rural Services (RDRS), and Social Equality for Effective Development (SEED).
60
Furthermore, WG2‐Rangpur enhanced the supporting roles of the government sector and NGOs by training their staffs so they could disseminate the newly developed technologies across northwestern Bangladesh. These staff members are also providing follow‐up technical guidance to farmers in the dissemination process. On 2 June 2007, training of trainers (TOT) was given to 64 participants on rice‐based system intensification/diversification to alleviate monga. The event was broadcast that evening on cable television. Participants were from the Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE), Bangladesh Rural Development Board (BRDB), and the NGOs RDRS and SEED. On 3 June 2007, TOT was given to 45 participants from DAE, BRDB, and SEED on quality seedling raising and improved bolon practice, as well as instructions on using a protocol for validating Swarna‐Sub1 in flash‐flooded ecosystems. Other activities during the first half of 2007 included
• Orientation on rainfed cropping systems and disease constraints for 100 postgraduate students from Carmichael University, Rangpur, 30 April;
• BRRI senior management tour of CURE villages, 20 April; and • On‐station tour of monga mitigation research for Rangpur District officials and upazilla
agricultural officers, 10 May. Qualitative impact assessment of the Rangpur key site An anthropologist from IRRI conducted a qualitative impact assessment of the WG‐2 Rangpur’s activities on 26‐30 March 2007. The assessment involved focus group discussions with farmers at the CURE villages of Dharmondas, Sheikpara, and Kishamot Habu, and in an NGO‐served village of Babarighar. This assessment verified farmer acceptability of monga mitigation technologies involving early direct seeding by either a drum seeder or lithao. The early seeding allows an earlier harvest when food is usually scarce and wage‐earning opportunities are few for agricultural laborers. It appeared that the technologies could improve livelihoods of wealthy, marginal, and poorer rural households, and there was evidence that even landless laborers could take up some of the technologies. Particular benefits of the technologies were the better rice yields and labor costs saved from having to transplant the crop as it was directly seeded. The landowners said that the early establishment practices allowed them to harvest rice early so they could sell rice and straw at higher prices at seasonal shortages, and they could hire laborers when wages were lower during the slack employment period. Early potato establishment allowed the crop to avoid late blight disease, which reduced the number of chemical sprays from 12–15 per season to 2–5. Farmers tended to comment that they would expand the areas that were sown with the new technologies in the next cropping season (2007). Usually, they were convinced after trying out the practices on a small piece of ground, and, after getting good results, they expected to triple the area for the next season. In addition, nonparticipating farmers often approached the assessment team seeking out knowledge about the new technologies, as they had observed positive results in their neighbors’ fields. As one farmer said, “These people are doing it. I ask myself, ‘Why am I not doing it?’”
61
C. Working Group 3 for salt‐affected soils Central Rice Reseach Institute (CRRI) Cuttack, India Output 1.1 Baseline information on farmer households, cropping practices, constraints, existing data sets, technologies, and recommendations made available. The biological scientists at the Central Rice Research Institute (CRRI) conducted a site characterization and inventory of indigenous technologies under the direction of an IRRI social scientist. The result was a baseline report of 50 rural households from CURE’s six villages in Erasama block, Jagatsingphur District, in the coastal saline lowlands of Orissa State. Results were compiled into a formal report and also presented to the CURE Steering Committee. The coastal saline site is within 2–12 km of the Bay of Bengal and is subject to tidal intrusions of saltwater. As the intrusions vary in intensity during the year, technologies were developed to help farmers cope with the different seasonal levels of salinity stress. Here, almost two‐thirds of the predominantly lowland ecosystem area has mostly sandy loam soils. The remaining soils are clay, clay‐loam, and sandy types. This is an area of smallholders, where 88% of the households cultivate marginal to small‐sized farms of less than 2 ha (Fig. 2). The remaining farms have medium to large landholdings. Using the baseline survey as a guide, the Working Group developed technologies to address the constraints to improved agricultural productivity, some of which are depicted in Figure 3: the lack of suitable varieties, lack of low‐cost technologies to enhance soil fertility, lack of water management technologies, and lack of improved crop management technologies. The farmers generally grow traditional rice varieties with a minimal use of agricultural inputs due to the high risks of abiotic stresses, that is, salinity, drought, and submergence, and due to natural calamities, which include storms and cyclones. For the wet season, farm households plant long‐duration local rice varieties, such as Bhaluki, Bhundi, and Rahspunjar, with yield potential of 1.5 t ha–1. The Project introduced higher‐yielding modern materials such as Lunishree, SR 26, Pankaj, and Patnai 23, with 4.0 t ha–1 yield potential. The dry‐season usual varieties were short‐duration Kandagiri and Naveen, grown only at freshwater irrigated sites. The Project introduced Canning 7, Annapurna, CSR 4, and CSR 10 that have yielding potential of 3.0 t ha–1 at marginal saline‐irrigated sites, which allowed for dry‐season rice area expansion.
62
Fig. 2. Proportion of households by landholding category, CURE site at Jagatsinghpur District, Orissa.3
Marginal (48%)
Small (40%)
Medium & large (12%)
Key to landholding sizesMarginal < 1.0 haSmall 1.0–2.0 haMedium & large > 2.0 ha
By the 2007 dry season, an expanded assessment of 111 households in 11 villages, including non‐CURE sites, showed that farmers who adopted CURE technologies were able to expand their dry‐season rice area from 5% of total cropping area to about 25%. On individual farms, the crop area expansion ranged from 25% to 152% from the previous year. The expansion was attributed to the introduction of salt‐tolerant varieties and matching crop and natural resource management practices, which were goals at the outset of the project. In addition, 7% of total landholdings were planted in dry‐season nonrice crops introduced by the Project: sunflower, watermelon, chilli, okra, and groundnut.
3 Saha S. 2005. Development of technologies to harness the productivity potential of salt‐affected areas of the Indo‐Gangetic, Mekong, and Nile River basins. Report for IRRI‐ICAR‐CRRI Collaborative Research Project.
63
Fig. 3. Complexities of the coastal saline ecosystem in Orissa, based on a CURE benchmark survey.4 Output 1.2 Feasible cropping innovations that combine complementary technologies for increasing productivity and reducing risks in rice‐based cropping systems developed and evaluated with farmers, and experiences shared across key sites of the target rainfed environments Detailed targets a. Ten salt‐tolerant varieties/elite lines evaluated on‐farm with at least two appropriate crop
management practices A total of 12–14 salt‐tolerant varieties were tested on‐farm during the wet seasons (Table 14) throughout the original term of the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project and in the 2007 one‐year extension. However, only one salt‐tolerant variety, either SR 26B or Lunishree, was tested with improved management, depending on the year. By the second year (2005) of the Project, the Working Group validated that new varieties + improved crop management practices could improve rice productivity by 91% over farmers’ usual varieties and management (Fig. 4), about a 1.5 t ha–1 4 Saha S. 2005. Development of technologies to harness the productivity potential of salt‐affected areas of the Indo‐Gangetic, Mekong, and Nile River basins. Report for IRRI‐ICAR‐CRRI Collaborative Research Project.
Low input use
Small landholdings
Resource-poor farmers
Lack of improved
technologies
Ecosystem mostly rainfed
Erratic rainfall
Cyclones
Abioticstress
Low farm income
Low yieldMonocropping
* Salinity* Drought* Submergence* Waterlogging
Normal rainfall in only 2 years of the past 25 years
Low input use
Small landholdings
Resource-poor farmers
Lack of improved
technologies
Ecosystem mostly rainfed
Erratic rainfall
Cyclones
Abioticstress
Low farm income
Low yieldMonocropping
* Salinity* Drought* Submergence* Waterlogging
Normal rainfall in only 2 years of the past 25 years
64
yield increase. Furthermore, using improved salt‐tolerant varieties with farmers’ management or farmers’ usual varieties with improved management could result in 22% and 47% increases, respectively, over farmers’ usual varieties and management. For the dry seasons throughout the Project and its extension, 13 to 19 salt‐tolerant varieties were tested on‐farm (Table 27). However, only one variety, either Annapurna or CSR 4, was tested with improved management, depending on the year. By 2006, the Working Group validated that new varieties + improved crop management could improve rice productivity by 75% over farmers’ usual varieties and practices, or a 1.5 t ha–1 increase.
Fig. 4. Yield enhancement due to improved management practices and salt‐tolerant rice varieties in farmers’ fields in coastal saline soils, 2005 dry season and 2006 wet season.
Dry‐season impact: CURE technologies expand rice cropping area
At the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project inception, dry‐season production was limited to areas of freshwater irrigation at the coastal salinity site of Orissa State. This was about 5% of total cropping area. By using newly developed CURE technologies, dry‐season cropping area expanded to about 25% of cultivable areas by the one‐year extension (2007). This expanded rice‐growing area could help to buffer households’ food security from potential failures in the wet‐season crop. The dry‐season improvement is largely due to farmers’ use of improved management because, combined with their usual varieties, productivity improved by 46% (Table 14). Farmers who used improved varieties with their own management had a lesser increase of 23% above their usual varieties and management. WG3’s work underscores the fact that improved management is very important for improving dry‐season productivity, although the use of improved varieties alone can result in better performance, but to a lesser extent.
0
1
2
3
4
2005 WS 2006 DSYear
Gra
in y
ield
(t h
a–1)
Farmers’ var. + farmers’ mgmt. Farmers’ var. + improved mgmt.
Improved var. + farmers’ mgmt. Improved var. + improved mgmt.
47 91 23 75Percent increase
over FVFM4622
0
1
2
3
4
2005 WS 2006 DSYear
Gra
in y
ield
(t h
a–1)
Farmers’ var. + farmers’ mgmt. Farmers’ var. + improved mgmt.
Improved var. + farmers’ mgmt. Improved var. + improved mgmt.
47 91 23 75Percent increase
over FVFM4622
65
The technology components of the new crop management system were fine‐tuned in separate on‐farm tests that occurred simultaneously throughout the Project. This section will further discuss these components in detail, that is, nursery management and improved nutrient management in the main field. Nursery management CURE developed nursery management practices to produce robust seedlings that could better withstand stress of salt‐affected soils after they were transplanted into the main field. Nursery management practices tested at the key site’s villages are
• Improved nutrient management: An application of NPK at two different rates was tested alone or with organic applications of farmyard manure, Azolla compost, or vermicompost. In general, NPK plus organic manures resulted in more vigorous seedlings and higher grain yield compared with the farmers’ practice that does not use fertilizer.
• Seedling age and spacing: Older, 50‐day‐old seedlings, transplanted at closer spacing, 15 × 10 cm, in the main field was found to be more productive than using 30‐day‐old seedlings (farmers’ practice) and 40‐day‐old seedlings, and wider spacing, 15 × 15 cm (farmers’ practice) and 15 × 20 cm.
• Advanced transplanting (dry season): Transplanting before mid‐January can allow rice to avoid higher levels of dry‐season salinity and improve productivity. Rice transplanted on 8 and 18 January recorded high yields compared with the farmers’ usual practice of transplanting in late January and early February, which, in some cases, results in crop failure due to high salinity that coincides with the flowering stage. In a qualitative impact assessment, farmers said that establishing nurseries earlier did not conflict with other seasonal tasks, such as the harvest of mature wet‐season rice, which did not have a narrow time window for completion.
Improved nutrient management for survival in salt‐affected soils of the main field Sesbania green manuring and an aquatic fern, Azolla biofertilizer, are sources of organic fertilizer that resource‐poor farmers can adopt at very little cost to improve crop productivity in salt‐affected soils. This can be very encouraging to the many resource‐poor farmers who use no fertilizer at all in the coastal salinity lowlands. Specific tests using these fertilizer sources were designed for wet‐ and dry‐season conditions:
• Wet season: Combinations of Azolla and Sesbania as organic fertilizer sources plus farmyard manure with or without prilled urea, and urea supergranules, were fine‐tuned for growing rice in shallow (up to 20 cm) and intermediate (20–50 cm) lowlands. Sesbania + inorganic fertilizer, or Sesbania + Azolla dual cropping, gave results comparable to high‐level applications of inorganic fertilizers in shallow lowlands (2004 wet season). In intermediate lowlands where application of inorganic fertilizers is not feasible, Sesbania was found promising. The implications are that farmers can improve plant survival and yield by integrating nitrogen‐fixing species such as Sesbania and Azolla into a nutrient
66
management system, or else use these species with lower amounts of manufactured fertilizer inputs. Farmers expressed satisfaction with the new nutrient management practices; however, a constraint is that Sesbania is subject to drought, especially in light‐textured soils.
• Dry season: Azolla treatments could save 30 kg ha–1 of fertilizer N as well as produce 0.5 t ha–1 more grain when they are used in tests with Annapurna and Canning 7 improved varieties. Azolla can also check weed growth and improve the efficiency of inorganic fertilizer that is applied in combination with biofertilizer.
On‐farm tests for new rice lines/varieties While WG3 tested new varieties with improved crop management practices, the team also initiated participatory varietal selection trials to identify the kinds of varieties that could be suitable for wet‐ and dry‐season conditions at the coastal salinity site (Table 27). These trials were valuable in discerning the performance of these varieties as well as eliciting farmers’ evaluations. In the 2004 wet season, WG3 initiated an on‐farm “mother” trial that allowed farmers to evaluate 12 promising salt‐tolerant varieties out of a total of 56 evaluated in previous PVS trials. This season had overall good growing conditions with rainfall sufficient for the crop growth stages. The top‐yielding varieties/CRRI elite lines were Lunishree and CR 2093‐7‐2, yielding more than 6.0 t ha–1, and Sonamai, SR 26B, and CR 2094‐46‐3, yielding from 5.0 to 6.0 t ha–1. Table 27. Varieties/lines tested in PVS for the coastal saline ecosystem, Cuttack. WS 2004 DS 2005 WS 2005 DS 2006 WS 2006 DS 2007 WS 2007 1. Lunishree IR73571‐
3B‐9‐3 Lunishree CSR 4 Lunishree CR 2472‐1‐
6‐2 CR 2096‐71‐2
2. Sonamani IR74096‐AC 35
SR 26B CSR 10 SR 26B CR 2473‐9‐131‐1
CR 2070‐52‐2
3. SR 26B IR73571‐3B‐9‐1
Sonamani IR73571‐3B‐14‐1
Patnai 23 IR72046‐B‐R‐3‐3‐3‐1
CR 2093‐7‐1
4. Sumati IR75000‐69‐2‐1
Sumati IR72046‐B‐R‐4‐3‐2‐1
CR 2094‐46‐3
IR72593‐B‐19‐2‐3‐1
CR 2069‐16‐1
5. Bhaluki (check)
IR63307‐4B‐2‐1
Patnai 23 IR72046‐B‐R‐6‐1‐1‐1
CR 2094‐155‐4
CR 2472‐1‐2‐4‐28‐2
CR 2095‐181‐1
6. Bhundi IR73571‐3B‐14‐1
CR 2093‐7‐1
IR69997‐AC 4
CR 2093‐7‐1
CR 2484‐197‐1‐1
CR 2094‐46‐3
7. Rahspunjar
IR73571‐3B‐13‐3
CR 2094‐46‐3
IR70023‐4B‐R‐12‐3‐1‐2B‐2
CR 2092‐141‐2
CR 2472‐3‐8‐80‐1
CR 2094‐155‐4
8. CR 2096‐71‐2
IR64197‐3B‐8‐2
CR 2092‐96‐2
IR72048‐B‐R‐8‐3‐1
CR 2096‐71‐2
CR 2485‐7‐1‐3‐45‐1
CR 2092‐141‐2
9. CR 2070‐54‐2
IR72593‐B‐19‐2‐3‐1
CR 2096‐71‐2
IR72593‐B‐19‐2‐3‐1
Bhaluki (check)
CSR 4 Patnai 23
10. CR 2070‐54‐3
PSBRc 50 CR 2070‐52‐2
IR70023‐4B‐R‐12‐3‐
CR 2095‐181‐1
Khandagiri (check)
SR 26B
67
1‐1 11 CR 2094‐
46‐3 IR29 (susceptible check)
Bhaluki (check)
IR29 (susceptiblecheck)
CR 2069‐16‐1
IR29 (check)
Bhaluki (check)
12 CR 2093‐7‐2
Canning 7 (resistant check)
Rahspanjar Canning 7 CR 2070‐52‐2
Annapurna
Lunishree
13. CSR 4
Chakrakund
Khandagiri (check)
IR72048‐4B‐R‐12‐3‐1‐2B‐2
IR66401‐2B‐6‐1‐3
CR 2071‐247‐1
14. Khandagiri (check)
Annapurna
IR72049‐B‐R‐22‐3‐1‐1
CR 2071‐245‐3
15. Annapurna
IR72046‐B‐R‐3‐3‐3‐1
16. IR72046‐B‐R‐3‐3‐3‐1
IR72049‐B‐R‐22‐3‐1‐1
17. IR72046‐B‐R‐4‐3‐2‐1
IR72048‐B‐R‐2‐2‐2‐1
18. IR72046‐B‐R‐6‐1‐1‐1
19. IR72400‐B‐6‐3‐3‐3‐3
In the 2005 dry season, 20 farmers evaluated 19 promising improved varieties and IRRI lines in on‐farm tests. Of these, improved variety CSR4 and IRRI cultures IR73571‐3B‐14‐1, IR72593‐B‐19‐2‐3‐1, IR72046‐B‐R‐3‐3‐3‐1, and IR72046‐B‐R‐4‐3‐2‐1 yielded more than 3.0 t ha–1, which was significantly higher than the checks. In the 2005 wet season, 25 farmers evaluated 13 improved varieties in farmers’ fields, of which Patnai 23 and CR 2096‐71‐2 yielded more than 2.5 t ha–1, or about 1.0 t ha–1 more than the local check. Farmers preferred SB 26B, Patnai 23, CR 2095‐181‐1, and CR 2093‐7‐1, which were multiplied in the 2006 wet season for distribution in the next wet season. In the 2006 dry season, 15 promising salt‐tolerant varieties/elite lines were evaluated in farmers’ fields. Farmers ranked highly the top‐yielder IR72046‐B‐R‐3‐3‐3‐1 (3.67 t ha–1) and other top yielders, Canning 7, Annapurna, IR72593‐B‐19‐2‐3‐1, and CSR 4 (yield of 3.5–3.7 t ha–1). Based on farmers’ rankings, lines were nominated to the All‐India Coordinated Rice Improvement Programme (AICRIP) for national testing and for potential release (Table 28).
68
Table 28. Nominees to the All‐India Coordinated Rice Improvement Programme, Cuttack.
Line Ecosystem Traits/characteristics/potential yield
AICRIP status
CR 2069‐16‐1 (IET 19680)
Coastal saline Medium tall, weakly photosensitive, medium slender grain, 115 days to 50% flowering, yield potential 4 t ha–1
SATVTa (1st year)
CR 2092‐141‐2 (IET 19471)
Coastal saline Medium tall, photosensitive, medium slender grain, 120 days to 50% flowering, yield potential 4 t ha–1
SATVT (2nd year)
CR 2093‐7‐1 (IET 19468)
Coastal saline Tall, photosensitive, medium bold grain, 125 days to 50% flowering, yield potential 4 t ha–1
SATVT (2nd year)
CR 2094‐46‐3 (IET 18696)
Coastal saline Tall, photosensitive, medium bold grain, 126 days to 50% flowering, yield potential 4.5 t ha–1
SATVT (3rd year)
CR 2096‐71‐2 (IET 18697)
Coastal saline Tall, photosensitive, medium slender grain, 125 days to 50% flowering, yield potential 4 t ha–1
SATVT (3rd year) identified, N response trial being conducted
CR 2070‐52‐2 (IET 18692)
Sodic Tall, photosensitive, medium bold grain, 115 days to 50% flowering, yield potential 4.5 t ha–1
SATVT (3rd year) identified, N response trial
CR 2577 (IR72046‐B‐R‐3‐3‐3‐1
Coastal (DS) Medium height, photo‐insensitive, medium slender grain, 80 days to 50% flowering, yield potential 4.5 t ha–1
NSASNb (1st year)
aSATVT = Saline Alkaline Tolerant Varietal Trial. bNSASN = National Saline Alkaline Screening Nursery. In the 2006 wet season, 11 varieties/elite CRRI lines were evaluated in farmers’ fields, of which SR 26B, Patnai 23, CR 2095‐181‐1, and CR 2093‐7‐1 (yield of 2.99–3.66 t ha–1) were top ranked by 25 farmers. These materials were distributed in the 2007 wet season. In the 2007 dry season, 11 promising salt‐tolerant varieties/IRRI and CRRI elite lines were evaluated in farmers’ fields. The most promising were the lines CR 2472‐1‐6‐2, CR 2473‐9‐136‐1‐1, IR72046‐B‐R‐3‐3‐3‐1, and IR72596‐B‐19‐2‐3‐1, which yielded more than 3.0 t ha–1. In the 2007 wet season, heavy rainfall, compounded by sand deposition blocking the river outlet, resulted in severe flooding that damaged most of the farmers’ fields and also all 13 varieties/elite lines sown for on‐farm evaluations. Whatever performance data that were available were collected and compiled for analysis. In addition to the PVS testing, WG3 also evaluated hundreds of new materials, that is, IRRI and CRRI breeding lines, elite lines, and landraces, in observational nursery trials for purposes of identifying their tolerance of salt‐affected soils (Table 29). The data sets compiled will be useful
69
for identifying genetic materials for future breeding of rice for the kinds of stresses of this ecosystem. Some materials were tested in coordination with the International Rice Soil Stress Tolerance Observational Nursery (IRSSTON). Table 29. Quantities of genetic material tested in the observational nursery, Cuttack. Year Wet season Dry season 2004 177 breeding lines (IRRI and CRRI),
23 landraces Not available
2005 135 breeding lines 20 varieties/elite lines 2006 66 elite lines (IRRI) and 256 breeding
lines (CRRI) 49 elite breeding lines
2007 150 elite lines, of which 101 from IRSSTN all died from prolonged submergence before transplanting
66 elite lines from IRRI under IRSSTN, 256 CRRI breeding lines
b. A 20–30% improvement in rice yield at target sites As discussed in section “a” above and illustrated in Figure 2, the technologies developed for the coastal salinity area can improve farmers’ productivity well beyond the 20–30% objective for this output. Improved management and new varieties can raise wet‐season rice yields by 91%, whereas it can raise dry‐season rice yields by 71%, which is more than three to four times the targeted percentage increase set forth for this output. A 2007 dry‐season survey found that farmers were achieving a 1.0 t ha–1 yield increase over their traditional varieties, which would be a 33–40% productivity increase for the dry season.5 The report found that varieties such as Annapurna and CSR 4, along with IRRI cultures, yielded 3.5–4.0 t ha–1. Popular varieties such as Khandagiri, Parijat, and Naveen could achieve only 2.5–3.0 t ha–1 because of their sensitivity to salinity during the dry season. More important is that farmers could either expand or initiate dry‐season rice sowings as they gained confidence in these materials. Data collected from the surveyed villages in Erasama block, Jagatsinghpur District, showed that dry‐season rice cultivation increased from 136.4 ha in 2006 to 306.9 ha in 2007—a 125% increase. A qualitative impact assessment conducted in November 2006 found that farmers had improved rice productivity to the extent they had achieved food security and were growing a surplus for marketing, which contrasted to the preproject period when they could only grow enough rice for only 4 to 9 months. They were optimistic that male household members either would not have to out‐migrate or they could reduce the amount of out‐migration to jobs in urban areas where they earned money to support the household. Because they could grow enough rice, they could invest the savings from rice purchases in the household to improve their overall well‐being. At Chaulia village, for example, men and women farmers reported that
5 Saha S. 2005. Development of technologies to harness the productivity potential of salt‐affected areas of the Indo‐Gangetic, Mekong, and Nile River basins. Report for IRRI‐ICAR‐CRRI Collaborative Research Project.
70
they were able to afford to send all boys and girls to school now, and that they also had enough money to buy consumer goods. Furthermore, the WG3 team’s 2007 dry‐season survey documented that these technologies were being taken up by farmers outside of the CURE network. c. A 25% increase in cropping intensity through diversification Through the introduction of salt‐tolerant nonrice crops to diversify the rice‐based production system, dry‐season cropping intensity more than doubled after the Project start‐up period.6 A 2007 dry‐season survey found that participating farmers grew these new crops on 10.2 ha, which is 101% more than the 5.0‐ha area grown in nonrice crops in 2004. In addition, cultivation of nonrice crops spread to nonparticipating farmers, who had 28.47 ha under production, according to the 2007 survey. These increases can be attributed entirely to CURE as it was the only organization that introduced these crops to these villages. Of 10 crops tested under low, medium, and high salinity, sunflower earned highly favorable comments from farmers (Table 30). The on‐farm investigations also found that it was highly productive under conditions of low, medium, or high salinity. Farmers liked the fact that the seed can be pressed into cooking oil, which saved them from having to buy that essential household commodity. However, they wanted more information about postharvest seed preparation for pressing, and the area also lacked efficient seed‐pressing facilities. Farmers also favorably evaluated other nonrice crops, but they gave production priority to sunflower. Because of farmers’ favor for sunflower, CURE distributed 64 kg of seed to 90 farmers in 11 villages in the 2007 scaling out for the Project’s one‐year extension. In that year, the team also investigated management practices to optimize sunflower production. The highest yields were attained with an NPK + farmyard manure (5.0 t ha–1) application, sown at spacing of either 30 × 30 cm or 30 × 25 cm. Other crops were scaled out based on their good performance in the three years of tests. These were chilli for high‐saline areas and watermelon and okra for medium‐saline areas. Finally, WG3 tested various millets and tuber crops in 2006 and 2007, respectively, to investigate their suitability for the coastal salinity ecosystem. These included 12 salt‐tolerant genotypes each of sorghum and pearl millet from the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi‐Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) for fodder. There was wide variability in forage yield, but five genotypes of sorghum and four genotypes of pearl millet gave the highest green‐fodder yields of 9–10 t ha–1 in two cuttings. In the tuber trials, a total of 15 sweet potato varieties were evaluated and two International Potato Center (CIP) and two Indian varieties were found to be very productive under medium and high salinity. 6 Saha S. 2005. Development of technologies to harness the productivity potential of salt‐affected areas of the Indo‐Gangetic, Mekong, and Nile River basins. Report for IRRI‐ICAR‐CRRI Collaborative Research Project.
71
Table 30. Nonrice crops tested in the coastal salinity ecosystem, Cuttack. On‐farm evaluation Scaling out (# of farmers)
2005
2006
2007
Medium salinity
High salinity Medium salinity
High salinity
High salinity
Medium salinity
1 Basella Basella Chilli Basella Chilli (8) Okra (35) 2 Bitter gourd Bitter gourd Groundnut Chilli Sunflower
(90) Watermelon (35)
3 Carrot Carrot Okra Pumpkin 4 Chilli Chilli Pumpkin Sunflower 5 Groundnut Groundnut Sunflower Watermelon 6 Okra Okra Watermelon 7 Pumpkin Pumpkin 8 Sunflower Sunflower 9 Tomato Tomato 10 Watermelon Watermelon Output 2 Knowledge distilled into decision tools, management principles, and operational guidelines that are extension‐ready; extrapolation domains of improved production systems identified. Research findings presented at major conferences By the end of the 2005 wet season and 2006 dry season, improved varieties and crop management practices were validated for the coastal saline ecosystem in villages at Erasama block, Jagatsinghpur District. Members of the research team were able to document the management principles and operational guidelines and present these findings at three international meetings:
• Second International Rice Congress, New Delhi, India, 9‐13 Oct. 2006 (four); • International Symposium on Management of the Coastal Ecosystem: Technological
Advancement and Livelihood Security, Kolkata, India, 27‐30 Oct. 2007 (four); and • Delta 7: Managing the Coastal Land‐Water Interface in Tropical Delta Systems, Bang
Saen, Thailand, 7‐9 Nov. 2007 (four). These presentations covered farmer participatory methodologies for developing germplasm and crop and natural resource management practices for the coastal saline ecosystem. For the Cuttack key site, the methods were able to identify farmer‐acceptable varieties tolerant of salinity and other abiotic stresses that frequently occur in this ecosystem. In addition, researchers worked with farmers to develop appropriate management techniques to enhance the genetic potential of new rice varieties. The research showed that improved management is particularly important for achieving the yield potential of new rice varieties in the dry season and, to a lesser extent, in the wet season. In any event, the combination of improved germplasm
72
and new crop management practices can improve rice productivity and enhance rural households’ livelihoods. Specific citations of the above papers can be found in the WG3, Cuttack, section of Appendix 4.
Creating awareness of technologies through farmers’ field days To promote the technologies developed for the coastal saline ecosystem, WG3 sponsored annual field days at research sites and farmers’ visits to experimental sites in the CURE villages. The field days allowed a wide audience of farmers and representatives of NGOs, local government units, and extension to become familiar with rice varieties and crop management practices that can improve rural households’ productivity. Field days were conducted on 17 Dec. 2004 at Chaulia village, with 60 farmers attending; 18 June 2005 at Kankan village, with 100 farmers attending; 23 Dec. 2006 at Nagari village, Erasama block, with 100 farmers attending; and 23 April 2007 at CRRI, Cuttack, with 50 farmers attending. The farmers’ visits, each involving 20–25 men and women participants, were conducted twice a year, during which they evaluated technologies and discussed constraints and opportunities with researchers. It was during the farmers’ visits that PVS trials were conducted. Researchers noted that farmers’ attitudes changed positively toward these technologies, which set the groundwork for further spread and adoption. Promoting technologies through various media To sustain the gains of the Project over the long term, a bulletin, “High‐yielding rice varieties for coastal saline soils,” was printed in Oriya, the local language, in 2005. This bulletin will assure that important research findings on varietal identification will be available to farmers even after Project termination. The Working Group also promoted the technologies through television programs that were broadcast in the Oriya language across Orissa:
• October 2005: awareness‐raising program on the new technologies. • April 2006: newly developed technologies of this ecosystem. • August 2006: use of the aquatic fern, Azolla biofertilizer, in rice (also in Hindi). • June 2007: farmers’ problems in the coastal saline ecosystem, management of salt‐
affected coastal soils for increasing productivity of rice and nonrice crops, and farmers’ experiences of working in partnership with scientists under CURE and CPWF projects.
Training farmers for proper seed health management A CRRI resident agronomist, Dr. Sanjoy Saha, underwent seed health management training in September 2005 at the CURE key site at Faizabad in order to prepare for training farmers at the Cuttack key site. Dr. Saha provided training to 25 farmers on 11 Nov. 2005 at CRRI, Cuttack. An IRRI seed health consultant followed up the training with an assessment of farmers’ practices on 15‐19 May 2006, which also served as refresher training of the principles taught. The
73
consultant took samples of stored seed from 21 trained farmers and from four nontrained farmers of nine villages throughout Jagatsinghpur District. The consultant found that the trained farmers had better quality seed than nontrained farmers. The majority of the trained farmers had seeds with a satisfactory germination rating of greater than 85%, and the proportion of clean seeds in most of the samples was more than 80%, a high level of acceptability. The consultant noted that some samples did not meet seed health quality levels so researchers would need to closely monitor them in the future. Output 3 Capacity of NARES strengthened for implementing integrative and participatory technology development and dissemination. Members of the WG3 research team participated in numerous training activities for implementing farmer participatory research throughout the life of this Project. This training involved a familiarization workshop at the 2004 CURE Steering Committee meeting in Ubon, Thailand, followed by two researchers receiving specific skills training in Participatory Approaches for Agricultural Research and Extension at IRRI headquarters. WG3 members and associated CRRI staff also received training to upgrade their technical skills in seed health management, rice breeding, and project management. Specific training activities follow in Table 31. Table 31. NARES’ capacity‐building activities, CURE WG3‐Cuttack.
Training course/activity W3‐Cuttack participants Innovative Research Methods and Strategies for Conducting Research in Rainfed Environments Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand, 4 June 2004
Dr. S.G. Sharma, Working Group leader, and Dr. Glenn Gregorio, Working Group co‐ leader
Advances in Marker‐Assisted Selection Workshop IRRI HQ, Los Baños, Philippines, 21‐24 Feb. 2005
Dr. D.P. Singh, Dr. J.N. Reddy, Dr. P. Sen, Dr. R.K. Sarkar, Dr. Sanjay Singh
Project Management Workshop IRRI HQ, Los Baños, Philippines, 28 Feb. 2005
Dr. D.P. Singh, Dr. J.N. Reddy, Dr. P. Sen, Dr. R.K. Sarkar, Dr. Sanjay Singh
Rice Seed Health Management Training NDUAT, Faizabad, India, 1‐4 Sept. 2005
Dr. Sanjoy Saha
Cross‐site visits to India and Bangladesh, and Review and Planning meeting of CURE and BMZ Project NDUAT, Faizabad, India; CRRI, Cuttack, India; Dhaka, Bangladesh, and BRRI Regional Station, Rangpur, Bangladesh, 15‐20 Sept. 2005
Dr. J.N. Reddy, Dr. R.K. Sarkar, Mr. S.S.C. Patnaik
Participatory Approaches for Agricultural Research & Extension IRRI HQ, Los Baños, Philippines, 21 Nov. ‐2 Dec. 2005
Dr. D.P. Singh, key site coordinator, and Dr. Sanjoy Saha
74
Output 4 Farmer acceptability and viability of innovative production systems assessed; policymakers and development authorities sensitized on supporting sector needs for wider adoption. Assessments of farmer acceptability of technologies Through the process of farmer participatory research, the WG3 team worked closely with farmers in their fields and were able to assess their receptivity to the newly developed technologies. As a result of this interaction, researchers reported by the second year (2005) of the Project that farmers’ attitudes were changing favorably toward the technologies. Farmers were increasingly asking for seed of salt‐tolerant rice varieties and nonrice crops, and interest was emerging in organic fertilizer applications, that is, Sesbania green manuring and the biofertilizer Azolla aquatic fern. In particular, farmers were satisfied with
• Salt‐tolerant varieties; • Crop management practices such as nursery fertilization, closer seedling spacing for
wet‐season crop establishment, advanced transplanting for the dry season, etc.; • Organic nutrient management practices that can be adopted at little cost, for example,
Sesbania green manuring and the aquatic fern Azolla biofertilizer; • Use of salt‐tolerant rice varieties with best‐bet management practices; and • Nonrice crops to diversify dry‐season production, such as sunflower, Basella,
watermelon, chilli, and okra. In the 2006 dry season, the IRRI Social Sciences Division conducted a short‐term impact assessment, which essentially confirmed the researchers’ observations. The study documented the increasing demand for seeds of improved salt‐tolerant varieties, nonrice crops, Sesbania green manure, and Azolla inoculum. A few farmers had established Azolla nurseries in their ponds and were producing Sesbania seeds for their own use. Qualitative impact assessment conducted by anthropologist A qualitative assessment by an anthropologist from IRRI, 26 Nov.‐3 Dec. 2006, also documented that farmers’ perceptions were largely favorable toward the impact of the new technologies on improving food security at two CURE villages. Separate focus group discussions of men and women farmers were conducted in each village. Farmers said that the new technologies raised yields of the main wet‐season crop and allowed expansion of rice area in the dry season, resulting in a rice surplus and enhanced farmers’ income. Even though farmers have been able to achieve food security by using CURE technologies, they are still very conservative toward total adoption as they want to continue to test these technologies under the wide‐ranging climatic conditions of this ecosystem. It may take three or four more years to achieve complete adoption if farmers continue to observe the advantages of these technologies. Sunflower is well accepted by farmers as a way to diversify the rice‐based cropping system in the dry season because a basic household commodity, cooking oil, can be extracted from the seed, which saves farmers money on household expenses. Farmers reported that they observed good crop
75
conditions by using nutrient management and improved transplanting methods. Farmers desire salt‐tolerant varieties that also have equally good tolerance of submergence and drought, as weather conditions are erratic and unpredictable in this coastal saline ecosystem. Of critical importance are varieties that do well under saline‐water‐irrigated conditions for the dry season. Quantitative assessment of dry‐season impacts Dr. Saha also documented farmer acceptability and viability of the dry‐season technologies in a March 2007 quantitative impact assessment of villages participating in the ADB‐RETA 6136 and Challenge Program for Water and Food projects at the CURE site. The technology adoption is entirely due to CURE because it is the only organization doing agricultural outreach in these villages. Table 32 shows that rice area increased by about 20 ha, or more than doubled from 2006 to 2007. Furthermore, yields for the introduced varieties of Annapurna, CSR4, and IRRI lines averaged 3.5–4.0 t ha–1, or a 1 t ha–1 increase over farmers’ usual varieties. Only Chaulia village saw a decline in rice area due to a shift to nonrice crops that CURE had introduced. The village had nearly 1.0 ha sown in nonrice crops, of which sunflower (0.41 ha) was the most popular. Table 32. Area under rice cultivation during dry season, Orissa State. Site no. Village Rice area (ha)
2006 2007 %
increase 1 Saraba 2.1 3.8 76.5 2 Saraba Pata 1.8 3.9 110.9 3 Bada Belari 2.4 4.9 104.2 4 Sahada Bedi 2.4 5.0 108.3 5 Nagari 1.5 7.4 406.8 6 Kimilo 3.3 6.8 104.3 7 Patna 0.4 0.5 25.0 8 Chaulia 1.8 1.4 –22.2 9 Ambiki 1.2 2.8 133.3 10 Ganga Devi 0.2 0.8 300.0 Total 17.1 37.3 122.5 The survey also showed that farmers sowed nearly 10.2 ha, or 7% of total wet‐ and dry‐season cultivable area, in the nonrice crops that CURE introduced to these villages (Table 33). The data show that nine and eight villages were growing chilli (0.98 ha) and sunflower (2.16 ha), respectively, which were among the most popular nonrice crops. Although more area was sown in watermelon (2.30 ha) and groundnut (4.23 ha), most of this area was confined to Patna (2.0 ha) and Bada Belari (3.80 ha) villages, respectively, due to the suitable growing environments at these locations.
76
Table 33. Area under nonrice crops during dry season, 2007. Crops Site no. Village
Sunflower Watermelon Groundnut Chilli Okra Total 1 Saraba 0.28 0 0 0 0 0.28 2 Saraba
Pata 0 0 0 0.04 0 0.04
3 Bada Belari
0.22 0 3.80 0.20 0 4.22
4 Sahada Bedi
0 0 0 0 0 0
5 Nagari 0.14 0 0.16 0.09 0.04 0.43 6 Kimilo 0.53 0.04 0 0.11 0.32 1.00 7 Kankan 0.26 0.09 0.04 0.11 0.14 0.64 8 Patna 0.02 2.00 0 0.06 0.09 2.17 9 Chaulia 0.41 0.17 0.21 0.15 0.04 0.98 10 Ambiki 0.30 0 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.38 11 Ganga
Devi 0 0 0 0.04 0 0.04
Total 2.16 2.30 4.23 0.84 0.65 10.18 D. Working Group 4 for sloping rotational uplands Northern Agriculture and Forestry Research Center (NAFReC) Luang Prabang, Laos Output 1.1 Baseline information on farmer households, cropping practices, constraints, existing data sets, technologies, and recommendations made available Working Group 4 undertook two socioeconomic studies in northern Laos to assess the applicability of new technologies to the poorest of the poor farming households beyond the Luang Prabang key site. These studies assessed technology needs in two of the poorest districts in Laos and provided some guidance for CURE’s research in the uplands. These studies involved largely qualitative research methodologies in Oudomxay Province, 27 April‐7 May 2005, and in Phongsaly Province, 14‐20 Oct. 2005. Research at the latter site also gathered household economic data. Four villages were studied in each province. The Oudomxay (and number of villages in parentheses) study covered Khmu (2), Hmong (1), and Tai Dam‐Tai Yang (1) villages; the Phongsaly study covered Khmu (1), Lao‐Phu Noy (1), Phouxang (1), and Mouchi (1) ethnic groups. The latter two groups are not widely studied. Na Mo District is reported to have an overall poverty rate of 92.6%, but a 1‐month food surplus (although the surveyed villages had several months of food deficits); Samphanh District is reported to have a 96% poverty rate and
77
food shortages for 6 months.7 Overall socioeconomic conditions are provided in Table 34 for Na Mo District and in Table 35 for Samphanh District. Table 34. Villages surveyed, Na Mo District, Oudomxay Province, Lao PDR.
Village Ethnicity AEA survey on poverty status a
Km from sealed road, from district seat
(minutes from district seat)
Namo Tay Tai Dam and Tai Yang Medium poor 1, 7 (13) Kiewlan Hmong Medium poor 6, 12 (20) Houay Hok Khmu Very poor 9, 9 (35) Mak Chouk Khmu Very poor 6, 34 (36) a Agroecological analysis compiled by Swedish International Development Agency. For Na Mo District, the study characterized the agroecological zones, types of farming practices, and crops cultivated in each. These include very limited lowland paddy (rainfed and, in one case, irrigated), sloping upland fields, livestock grazing lands, homegardens, and forest. The households value the high productivity potential of lowland paddy, but the amount of land available is extremely limited. Paddy may yield as much as 4.0 t ha–1, whereas rice in sloping upland fields yields about 1.5–2.5 t ha–1. Commonly, households experience two to three hungry months prior to the upland rice harvest (July through September); the Hmong ethnic group’s hungry months may be for half a year, during which they consume maize. Farmers at all villages are also concerned about the effect of the expansion of shifting cultivation fields on forest cover, as the latter is a resource for gathering remunerative nontimber forest products (NTFP), an important income‐generating activity. As a result of the survey, the following technology needs were assessed for Na Mo District:
• Improved germplasm is needed to improve rice production in the limited lowland paddy and for the shortened fallow situation in upland fields. Drought‐tolerant and short‐duration varieties should be tested for upland fields, whereas moisture‐short tolerant varieties would be preferred for lowland paddy. Gall midge and rodent damage are also production constraints in rice.
• In the livelihood system, maize is grown widely as a cash crop; farmers are interested in better production methods. NTFPs, particularly for export to China, are important for households’ livelihoods. A Khmu village has drying facilities for red mushroom, while it and the other villages market cardamom, bamboo shoots, barks of various trees, and grass for broom‐making.
• There is an interest in plantation crops as a sustainable alternative integrated practice with shifting cultivation; they are perceived to require less labor than rice. Rubber was mentioned as a possibility, although villagers needed technical know‐how and marketing information.
7 The source of data is the Lao Expenditure and Consumption Survey 1998 (LECS), National Statistical Center, Committee for Planning and Cooperation, Lao PDR.
78
Table 35. Villages surveyed, Samphanh District, Phongsaly Province.
Village Altitude (m)
Ethnicity
Mode of transport to district seat, Ban Naxai (accessible only by mountain trail or by boat on Nam Ou River)
Travel time/distance to district seat a
Hatlan 1,072 Khmu Boat 10 minutes south on Nam Ou River
Khana 780 Lao‐Phu‐Noy
Boat 5 minutes north on Nam Ou River
Phouxang 1,020 Phouxang Boat and road 55 minutes: 20‐minute boat ride to landing at Lao‐American Project Road, 35‐minute drive over 14‐km road
Mouchi Kang
1,143 Mouchi Boat and road 1 hour, 5 minutes: 20‐minute boat ride to Lao‐American Project Road landing, 45‐minute drive over 23‐km road
a Travel times by road are based on the use of a motorized vehicle, to which most people do not have access. Walking is the most common form of transport, although villagers indicated that the recently constructed Lao‐American Project Road makes going from place to place easier. Samphanh District is in a postopium transition, as U.S.‐funded projects appear to have reduced opium production, and householders are seeking viable alternatives to fill the gap in income once occupied by opium. The construction of the Lao‐American Project Road in recent years gives villagers better access to markets, although most district residents must reach them either by a boat landing or by hiking on mountain trails. Households greatly depend on upland shifting fields for food security, as level lands for paddy are limited in this steep terrain and/or are nonexistent in many villages. Only two of the surveyed households had any paddy land, whereas the Lao‐American Project was developing terraces in one of the two other villages. Virtually all rice varieties grown are traditional, yielding less than 2.0 t ha–1, although the district government and Lao‐American Project have introduced some improved lowland varieties. Households sowing solely upland rice are food insecure up to six months per year. They have to find ways to earn money to buy rice, either through selling NTFPs or livestock or by day‐laboring. They may also borrow rice or exchange it for local products. Based on the survey, these technology needs were assessed for Samphanh District:
• Opportunities exist for newer germplasm to raise productivity in sloping rotational upland fields, whereas terraces would need to be constructed for paddy production, as there is limited if any suitable lowlands. Priority should be given to food‐insecure households farming sloping uplands as well as constructing terraces for their use, as households with existing lowland paddy are food‐secure.
• Livestock (cattle, buffalo, swine, chickens, and ducks) are an important part of upland livelihood systems in terms of food and cash generation, and any crop improvement initiative should be integrated with the livestock production system as animals tend to
79
damage crops. Disease control is a main constraint for livestock productivity as not all villages have access to animal vaccinations.
• The livelihood system could benefit from remunerative upland nonrice crops that can be marketed as the road system has improved. Households are already selling some crops, such as sesame, tea, chilli, and ginger. Other cash‐generating activities include NTFPs, although unregulated gathering is a problem. Farmers also recognize that reducing the expansion of shifting cultivation fields will favor forest cover and NTFP production.
Output 1.2.1 Suitable upland rice varieties and improved fallow management options developed and validated for rotational rice‐based systems a. At least five improved varieties suitable to upland conditions developed Working Group 4’s participatory varietal selection (PVS) trials throughout northern Laos identified suitable traditional rice varieties for short‐fallow and intensely cropped upland areas, as well as improved materials for more favorable uplands. As a result of these trials, WG4 recommends four glutinous, one nonglutinous, and two improved rice varieties for upland cropping systems. Many of these varieties yielded considerably above the local checks, while earning farmers’ high preference rankings (Table 36). For short‐fallow systems, rice varieties Nok and Mak Hin Soung yielded 1.88–2.05 t ha–1 or 0.3–0.5 t ha–1 above local check cultivars (1.58 t ha–1). For continuous cropping systems, rice varieties Chao Mad, Non, and Laboun yielded 1.98–2.08 t ha–1, or 0.4–0.5 t ha–1 above the local check cultivar (1.58 t ha–1). The improved varieties, B6144F‐MR‐6 and IR55423‐1 yielded 2.18–2.98 t ha–1, or 0.6–1.4 t ha–1 above the local check cultivars (1.58 t ha–1). Furthermore, these varieties have different durations, which allow farmers to better manage the timing of plantings to avoid pest damage and to better manage labor allocation for harvesting rice. Table 36. Suitable rice varieties identified for sloping rotational upland systems, northern Laos.
Cultivar Type Yield (t ha–1) % yield over check (1.58 t ha–1, all varieties)
Short fallow Nok Early glutinous Mak Hin Soung Medium glutinous
1.88–2.05 18–31
Continuous cropping Chao Mad Medium nonglutinous Non Medium glutinous Laboun Medium glutinous
1.98–2.08 25–31
Improved varieties B6144F‐MR‐6 Medium nonglutinous IR55423‐1 Early nonglutinous
2.18–2.98 37–88
WG4’s PVS trials encompassed the northern provinces of Laos, which allowed farmers to evaluate the varieties under the ranges of local environmental conditions in this mountainous
80
area. Many of these areas are remote and have poor transport infrastructure, so farmers were able to evaluate new cultivars to which they might not otherwise have access. In all, WG4 conducted PVS trials in Luang Prabang, Luang Namtha, Xieng Khouang, Oudomxay, Sayabouli, Phongsaly, Bokeo, and Houa Phan provinces throughout the Project’s original life (2004‐06) and in the one‐year (2007) extension. In all, the Northern Agriculture and Forestry Research Center in Luang Prabang Province screened more than 2,600 traditional accessions and more than 700 improved lines through a selection process involving observational nurseries, on‐station/on‐farm multilocational trials, and PVS in farmers’ fields. In each step, materials were evaluated for suitability, and then the better‐performers were selected for the succeeding evaluations. The number of PVS participants increased from 66 farmers in 2004 to 145 farmers in 2006; over this period, about 2,380 farmers visited the sites (Table 37). The large numbers of participants and visiting farmers is significant as Laos is home to many ethnic minority groups who use their own cultural criteria to evaluate rice varieties. The many varieties tested allowed them to seek out rice varieties to match cultural preferences and varieties suitable for the specific growing requirements of their local ecosystems. Table 37. Summary of PVS trials, northern Laos, 2004‐06.
Year No. of participating
farmers
No. of visiting farmers
2004 66 583 2005 70 564 2006 145 1,233 Total 281 2,380 Evaluations of cold‐tolerant varieties for upland paddies Dry‐season cropping in paddies offers farmers an opportunity to increase rice production in the more favorable areas of the uplands; however, rice is planted when cold is a constraint at the rice seedling stage. CURE tested four glutinous varieties for cold tolerance during the 2005‐06 dry season in farmers’ fields in Phone Thong, Na Ngiew, and Na Ngoy villages, Luang Prabang Province. The varieties were chosen based on farmers’ preferences and their field performance in previous trials. The varieties were sown in mid‐January 2006 and were harvested in early June. Three of the improved varieties yielded about 1 t ha–1 or more above the local check, while the fourth variety yielded about 0.33 t ha–1 more than the check (Table 38). The farmer‐preferred line was IR62443‐2B‐7‐2‐2‐1, which was the second‐highest yielder, at 1.50 t ha–1. In the prior season, the high yielders were IR62445‐2B‐12‐12 (3.10 t ha–1), IR6244‐2B‐73‐2‐2‐1 (2.86 t ha–1), and K39‐96‐1‐1‐1‐2 (2.81 t ha–1).
81
Table 38. PVS results of cold‐tolerant rice varieties, 2005‐06 dry season, Laos
Variety Yield (t ha–1)
Yield (t ha–1) and percentage
difference from check
Farmers’ranking
IR62443‐2B‐7‐2‐2‐1 1.50 0.76 (102%) 1 IR58614‐2B‐13‐1 1.53 0.79 (106%) 2 IR62445‐2B‐12‐12 1.05 0.31 (41%) 3 (tie) Local check 0.74 – 3 (tie) K39‐96‐1‐1‐1‐2 1.45 0.74 (95%) 5 b. Improved crop rotation options are validated by at least 50 participating farm households Rice‐rice bean rotation Multiyear trials were conducted to evaluate rice‐rice bean as a suitable rotation crop that could improve soil conditions and rice yield. In 2004, four varieties of rice bean Phaseolus calcaratus Rox. and upland rice variety Nok were sown in farmers’ fields, while another field was left fallow. The following year, rice variety Laboun was sown in these fields and gave a 44% yield increase at the site previously sown with the yellow and big‐grain rice bean. Laboun had a 5.7% yield increase in the field that was previously sown with green‐grain rice bean (Table 39). A total of 50 farmers evaluated these trials conducted in 10 farmers’ fields in four villages. Table 39. Rice variety Laboun yields in a rice and nonrice cropping rotation, 2005, and on‐station PVS results, 2006
Previous year’s crop 2005 rice
yield (t ha–1)
2005 rice yield difference and percentage
difference versus rice‐rice rotation
2006 rice bean yields(t ha–1) and
on‐station PVS (farmers’ rankings in parentheses)
Rice bean, yellow and big grain 1.01 0.31 (44%) 1.5 (4) Rice bean, black grain 0.69 −0.01 (−1.4%) 5.3 (1) Rice bean, yellow and small grain 0.71 0.01 (1.4%) 3.0 (3) Rice bean, green grain 0.74 0.04 (5.7%) 3.1 (2) Fallow 0.45 −0.25 (−35%) – Rice variety Nok 0.70 – – In 2006, WG4 hosted rice bean varietal trials established at Houay Khot Station, Luang Prabang Province. The high yielder, black‐grain rice bean (5.3 t ha–1), had good growth and a high number of filled pods, and drew the farmers’ top ranking (Table 39). Farmers gave the second and third rankings to the green‐grain (3.1 t ha–1) and yellow‐ and small‐grain (3.09 t ha–1) rice beans, respectively. Farmers’ least‐preferred variety was the big‐grain yellow bean (1.5 t ha–1) that had incurred insect damage during grain filling.
82
Table 40. Grain yield of rice and rice bean in different plantings of rice bean, 2007 on‐station test.
Yield (t ha–1) Sowing of rice bean after rice (week) Rice Rice bean
4 0.49 0.14 8 0.83 0.10 12 0.84 0.00 After harvest of rice 0.78 0.00 5%LSD 0.529116 0.106607 WG4 followed up these trials with 2007 on‐station rice bean establishment demonstrations in a rice‐based system. Black rice bean was broadcast into a stand of rice variety Khao Nok while this rice bean variety was line‐sown by dibbling in a comparison plot. The dates of rice bean sowing were 4, 8, and 12 weeks after rice sowing, as well as after the rice harvest (Tables 40, 41). The early planting by dibbling provided for good rice bean growth; however, the plants shaded the rice, which affected yield. Broadcasting resulted in poor germination because the rice bean remained on the soil surface only, although rice outyielded the rice bean crop intercropped by dibbling. The researchers concluded that rice bean should be intercropped only if there is sufficient rainfall 10 weeks after rice sowing, and the bean should be established by dibbling. Consequently, the leaf litter would provide a beneficial cover for the field in the dry season. Table 41. Comparison of grain yield (rice and rice bean) between different planting methods of rice bean.
Treatment Rice yield (t ha–1) Rice bean yield (t ha–1) Dibbled 0.59 0.12 Broadcast 0.88 0.00 5% LSD 0.221 0.075 Rice‐pigeon pea rotation CURE investigates sticklac production in a rice‐pigeon pea system to achieve an economic return on a marketable crop, as well as a way to use a leguminous species to renew soils during short fallows. Initial work (2004) showed that rice yield improved when rice was sown in a field that was in a pigeon pea fallow in the previous season, compared to fields that were in continuous rice or a natural fallow (Fig. 5). The pigeon pea had been relayed in rice in 2002, and, after the rice harvest, pigeon pea was maintained as a fallow crop (2003) to regenerate soils until planting rice the next year (2004). Forty farmers evaluated the trials either at Houay Khot Station or on‐farm. Based on this research, CURE recommended the rice‐pigeon pea system for short fallows and scaled it out to Pak Ou District, where 50 farmers participated in the 2005 evaluations. In 2005, farmers became aware of the potential for pigeon pea as a host crop for sticklac production. They can inoculate the plant with the parasitic insect Laccifer lacca for extracting resin, which can be harvested and sold for the industrial production of dyes, waxes, shellacs,
83
and varnishes. WG4 scaled out a rice‐pigeon pea/sticklac system to seven farmers in Houay Hia village in 2006, where other farmers were growing it for a local trader. Participating farmers were able to harvest sticklac in the following year. Two farmers indicated that their sticklac yields were 20 kg ha–1 and 75 kg ha–1, while the marketing price was 10,000 kip kg–1). The lower yields were attributed to ant feeding on the parasite, limiting the amount of resin that could be extracted from the plant. Fig. 5. 2004 rice yields after various one‐year fallows, Laos. WG4 also tested a pigeon pea‐rice intercrop combined with preplant herbicide application as an effective control for Imperata cylindrica. The discussion of results is in section “a” of Output 1.2 below. Other cropping options for uplands diversification Based on CURE’s dry‐season research, soybeans are recommended as a viable crop in lowland areas with access to roads for marketing. However, farmers were discouraged by low soybean prices. CURE also conducted upland soybean trials in a rice‐based system, which identified problems that require further investigation. In 2004, it was found that an early rice‐soybean combination results in low soybean yields, and the harvest management conflicts with longer‐duration rice in other fields. A total of 30 farmers evaluated this system. A 2005 study found that sowing soybeans in May resulted in higher yields than with a July sowing. However, this earlier planting time results in a harvest during the rainy season. A total of 50 farmers evaluated this system. This research also confirmed that soybean varieties SJ5 and JM60 were suited for upland conditions. In 2006, farmers planted upland rice late, resulting in a late rice harvest and late soybean sowing. Drought caused poor germination and seriously affected soybean growth. Also as a result of Project research, CURE can recommend paper mulberry in a rice rotation for upland farmers who have access to paper mulberry markets. However, livestock must be controlled to avoid trampling the crop during establishment.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Continuous rice Natural fallow Pigeon peafallow
Leucaena fallow
Ric
e gr
ain
yiel
d (t
ha–1
)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Continuous rice Natural fallow Pigeon peafallow
Leucaena fallow
Ric
e gr
ain
yiel
d (t
ha–1
)
84
Output 1.2.2 Suitable lowland rice varieties and improved nutrient and pest management options developed and validated for paddies in the uplands. a. Improved pest management options evaluated by at least 50 participating farm households Imperata cylindrica is a tough invasive weed with deep rhizome systems that can overtake upland cropping areas during fallow periods of sloping rotational systems. The weed can render extensive areas uncultivable. Farmers’ practice of burning off the top growth is very ineffective. WG4 has developed an effective treatment that involves a preplant application of glyphosate herbicide before sowing a pigeon pea‐rice intercrop (Table 42). In a 2006 on‐station trial, this treatment eliminated 99% of the Imperata shoots, which was more effective than the rice‐pigeon pea intercrop without glyphosate (51% weed reduction), and rice grown without any treatment in a control plot (58% weed reduction). Rice variety B6144‐MR‐6 was sown with these treatments. In participatory evaluations, six farmers expressed preference for the glyphosate + pigeon pea‐rice treatment. In the 2005 test, the glyphosate + pigeon pea‐rice system resulted in a 90% reduction in Imperata shoots, and a 30% rice yield increase. Table 42. Imperata management treatments, Houay Khot Station, Laos; 2006
Treatment
No. of Imperata shoots before transplanting
(no. m–2)
No. of Imperata shoots after transplanting
(no. m–2) and percentage reduction
Rice yield (t ha–1)
Yield (t ha–1) difference
from control (T3)
Glyphosate + pigeon pea‐rice (B6144‐MR‐6)
349 2 (99%) 1.37 0.65 (91%)
Pigeon pea‐rice (B6144‐MR‐6)
360 176 (51%) 0.70 –0.02 (–1.8%)
Rice (B6144‐MR‐6) 435 182 (58%) 0.72 – b. Nutrient management strategies developed on‐station for further testing in farmers’ fields This output was given low priority because staff members were committed to the other activities proposed for this key site during the Project. The Working Group did investigate the planting of legumes, such as pigeon pea, as a fallow crop that could be a source of N fixation in soils of sloping rotational fields as discussed in section “a” of Output 1.2.1 above. c. At least two gall midge‐resistant varieties evaluated Gall midge can be a major constraint for growing rice in upland paddies, which are the more productive cropping areas in this environment. During the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project, WG4 evaluated gall midge‐resistant varieties. Some of the better performers were Mak Nge and Meuang Nga. Their performances were evaluated in 11 farmers’ fields in four villages in 2005.
85
Because of the promising results with Meung Nga, 150 kg of seed was multiplied in three farmers’ fields in Pak Ou District in 2006 in preparation for scaling out the next year. Output 2 Knowledge distilled into decision tools, management principles, and operational guidelines that are extension‐ready; extrapolation domains of improved production systems identified. The extrapolation domain is identified as the sloping upland rotational systems of northern Laos, where CURE has tested traditional and improved varieties through on‐farm PVS trials. As this is a diverse ecosystem, farmers have the opportunity in PVS trials to evaluate numerous varieties to choose those that are suitable for their local growing requirements. As discussed in Output 1.2.1, CURE identified traditional varieties that can yield about 2.0 t ha–1, which is about 30% more than the local check cultivars. The good performers were Nok and Mak Hin Soung for short fallows and Laboun, Non, and Chao Mad for continuous cropping systems. For the improved varieties, B6144F‐MR‐6 and IR55423‐1 reached yields of almost 3.0 t ha–1, or as much as 88% more yield than local checks. The knowledge gained from PVS trials allowed CURE to supply seed for further dissemination in an IFAD loan program, Farmer‐participatory evaluation, demonstration, and transfer of improved technologies for rice‐based systems in the uplands of Laos, which includes participating provincial and district agricultural officers of Oudomxay and Sayabouli provinces. For this project, CURE supplied 1,534 kg of upland seed in 2006 and 2,763 kg of upland seed in 2007 for dissemination through the provincial and district officers (Table 43). This represents a significant influx of seed to these two provinces, as only 5 kg of seed was supplied in the 2000‐05 period. Furthermore, CURE supplied 650 kg of seed in 2006 and 1,720 kg of seed in 2007 for distribution to farmers in Luang Prabang, Bokeo, Luang Namtha, and Houa Phanh provinces, which were outside of the IFAD loan program. These figures are significant because, in the 2000‐05 period, the limited resources allowed substantial seed distribution only within Luang Prabang Province (100 kg), while other northern provinces received only 5 kg of seed during that period. As a result of the CURE‐IFAD collaborative effort, much more seed is being disseminated beyond Luang Prabang, and the volume of seed disseminated to both Oudomxay and Sayabouli provinces even exceeded the amount disseminated in Luang Prabang alone in 2006 and 2007. Table 43. Upland seed supplied (kg) to northern Lao provinces.
Province 2000‐05 2006 2007 Luang Prabang 100 200 400 Bokeo 5 80 120 Luang Namtha 5 20 80 Houa Phanh 5 60 120 Oudomxay 5 884 1,000 Sayabouli 5 290 1,043 Total 125 1,534 2,763
86
In support of scaling‐out efforts, and to assure that technologies developed from the research could be broadly adopted beyond targeted areas, WG4 developed fact sheets in local languages so that ethnic minority groups could receive the information. These printed materials are
• A fact sheet titled “Benefits of using glyphosate for controlling Imperata cylindrica before rice planting”;
• A fact sheet on rice‐pigeon pea/sticklac intercrop; and • A fact sheet (3 in total) for cultivating improved lines IR55423‐1, IR60080‐16A, and
B6144F‐MR‐6 for favorable uplands.
By the completion of the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project, WG4 was developing six fact sheets on nutrient, weed, and varietal management, all to be printed in local languages. Output 3 Capacity of NARES strengthened for implementing integrative and participatory technology development and dissemination. Because of limited social science capacity in Laos, CURE made an extensive effort to train collaborators on social science methodologies and farmer participatory methodologies. These training activities included familiarization with farmer participatory methods after the 2004 CURE Steering Committee meeting in Thailand and skills training at the Participatory Approaches to Agricultural Research and Extension workshops in 2005 and 2006 at IRRI HQs. WG4 staff members were able to attend a workshop in South Korea to learn about methodologies for transferring rice technologies. General social science concepts and methods were taught in 2004 to nine Lao staff at a 10‐day workshop in Vientiane, while the CURE key site coordinator also received project management training at the Social Sciences Division (IRRI) for a 2‐week period later in the year. In addition, numerous training activities were conducted to upgrade staff skills in weed management technologies and for English language instruction. Specific training activities are listed in Table 45. Table 44. NARES’ capacity‐building activities, CURE WG4, Luang Prabang.
Training course/activity WG4 Luang Prabang participants Innovative Research Methods and Strategies for Conducting Research in Rainfed Environments Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand 4 June 2004
Dr. Sushil Pandey, Working Group leader; Mr. Khamla Phanthaboun, key site coordinator
Weed Management Short Course Houay Khot Station, Laos 20‐22 July 2004
Ten technicians trained from the National Agriculture & Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI)
Enhancing Social Science Capacity in Agricultural Research and Development Vientiane, Lao PDR 23 Aug.‐1 Sept. 2004
Nine NAFRI staff members
CURE project management training IRRI HQs, Los Baños, Philippines
Mr. Khamla Phanthaboun
87
30 Nov.‐14 Dec. 2004 On‐the‐job training on weeds and IPM research Houay Khot Station, Laos August 2005
Mr. Khamser Yang
Leadership Course for Asian Women in Agriculturel Research & Development IRRI HQs. Los Baños, Philippines 7‐18 Nov. 2005
Ms. Vilayvanh Sihabouth
Participatory Approaches for Agricultural Research & Extension IRRI HQs, Los Baños, Philippines 21 Nov.‐2 Dec. 2005
Mr. Khamdok Songyikhangsuthor
Showcase of diverse rice‐growing environments and boro rice in Bangladesh Rural Development Academy, Bogor, and BRRI Regional Station, Rangpur 10‐11 March 2006
Mr. Khamdok Songyikhangsuthor
Rice Technology Transfer Systems in Asia Suwon, South Korea 20 Aug.‐3 Sept. 2006
Mr. Khamdok Songyikhangsuthor and Mr. Vorachith Sihathep
Participatory Approaches for Agricultural Research & Extension IRRI HQs, Los Baños, Philippines 7‐18 Aug. 2006
Mr. Khamla Phanthaboun
Output 4 Farmer acceptability and viability of innovative production systems assessed; policymakers and development authorities sensitized on supporting sector needs for wider adoption. Engaging agricultural officials for technology scaling out WG4 has engaged provincial and district agricultural officials to actively scale out traditional and improved rice lines/cultivars to resource‐poor farmers in Sayabouli and Oudomxay provinces. WG4’s efforts in identifying genetic materials for upland conditions allowed CURE to have available the kind of technology products (Output 2) that could be scaled out through an IFAD loan program in these two provinces. As WG4’s scaling‐out capacity is limited, the IFAD project is a sort of force multiplier that extends the benefits of CURE’s research beyond project villages. CURE distributed more than 3,200 kg of seed to these two provinces in 2006 and 2007, which is a quantum jump from the 10 kg of seed that was distributed in the 2000‐05 period. Furthermore, small‐scale studies indicated that farmers were exchanging seed with other farmers, which could account for the further spread of these new lines/varieties that were initially disseminated through the IFAD loan program. The study showed that 18.5 kg of seed supplied from CURE was distributed to 10 farmers in 10 villages in 2006. Those farmers subsequently distributed 943 kg of these lines/varieties to 62 farmers in 23 villages in 2007 (Table 45). The lines/varieties tracked in this study were B6144F‐MR‐6, Nok, and Phae Daeng.
88
Although the study may not be representative of the project’s areas as a whole, it does illustrate the extent to which farmer‐to‐farmer exchanges can be effective in the further dissemination of lines/cultivars. Table 45. Farmer‐to‐farmer exchanges of seed supplied by CURE to the IFAD loan program, Sayabouli and Oudomxay provinces.
Line/cultivar No. of farmers/villages
receiving lines/cultivars (2006)
Kg of seed supplied
to each farmer
No. of farmer‐to‐farmer seed recipients (2007)
Kg of seed receivedin farmer‐to‐farmer
exchanges B6144F‐MR‐6 5 farmers/
5 villages (uplands) 2.5 a. 26 farmers,
8 villages (upland) b. 24 farmers, 10 villages (lowland)
a. 380 b. 520
Nok 2 farmers/ 2 villages (uplands)
8.0 6 farmers, 2 villages (upland)
20
Phae Daeng 3 farmers/ 3 villages
8.0 6 farmers, 3 villages (upland)
23
Total 10 farmers/ 10 villages
18.5 62 farmers/23 villages 943
Qualitative impact assessment of CURE technologies An anthropologist from IRRI conducted a qualitative impact assessment, 25 Feb.‐2 March 2007, on technologies developed by the WG4 key site. The anthropologist conducted key informant interviews with farmers who had tried new rice lines/varieties supplied by CURE for dissemination through the IFAD loan program. The interviews occurred at Haeng Tai and Nam Haeng Neua villages in Oudomxay Province. The technologies had just been scaled out to these villages in the prior year, so it was too early to ascertain whether farmers would adopt them. However, the assessment did find that farmers appreciated the opportunity to try new seeds, as they could evaluate the lines/varieties’ performance under local environmental conditions that can vary from village to village. Although they could achieve higher yields with fertilizers, farmers explained that their financial situations would prevent them from purchasing the kind of inputs that had been provided by the project. Furthermore, the assessment identified cultural criteria that the Khmu farmers use to evaluate rice varieties. For example, Khmu use glutinous varieties for household consumption, but they may also be able to use nonglutinous varieties for making noodles to market to non‐Khmu neighbors. A bold grain is preferable for processing rice into noodles. Also, the Khmu use the hand‐strip method to harvest rice, leaving the straw in the field. Therefore, they would prefer new varieties that allow them to easily remove panicles from the plant stem. Finally, the assessment elicited indigenous knowledge that could be further investigated to verify correlations of farmers’ observations to crop damage they had observed in fields. An assessment was also conducted of the rice‐pigeon pea/sticklac intercrop at Houa Hia village, Luang Prabang Province, but the extent of sticklac production could not be evaluated because
89
the first harvest was 2 months away. However, farmers saw a good opportunity for enhancing their livelihood as a local company had been promoting sticklac production for export markets. E. Working Group 5 for drought‐prone plateau uplands Central Rainfed Upland Rice Research Station (CRURRS) Hazaribag, India Output 1.1 Baseline information on farmer households, cropping practices, constraints, existing data sets, technologies, and recommendations made available. The Central Rainfed Upland Rice Research Station is home to CURE Working Group 5 for drought‐prone plateau uplands at Hazaribag, Jharkhand State, India. A socioeconomic characterization was conducted in three villages that are also participating in a parallel project for the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) for accelerating technology adoption on the Eastern Indo‐Gangetic Plains. CURE covered the unbunded uplands, while the IFAD‐IGP project covered the shallow rainfed lowlands and bunded uplands. As many farm households operate both types of rice lands, a more complete socioeconomic characterization was obtained at villages participating in both projects. Researchers of the Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi, and the Holy Cross Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK), Hazaribag, conducted a baseline survey of 30 households each in Kuchu village, Ranchi District; Amnari Village, Hazaribag District; and Gidhore, which is one village in a cluster in Chatra District. The research activities in Chatra District actually occurred in Amin, another village in that cluster. In the third year of the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project, Amnari farmers opted for growing vegetables, so CURE transferred operations to Lupung village, Hazaribag District. The socioeconomic characterization, however, identified problems common to these districts. Follow‐up focus group discussions were conducted by an IRRI anthropologist at Kuchu, Amin, and Amnari villages in September 2005, which also preceded a qualitative impact assessment at Kuchu, Lupung, and Amin villages in 2006. Farming systems are quite diverse among the sites, but generally included upland rice in unbunded uplands as well as maize, pulses, and millets depending on location, and modern and traditional varieties in lowland rice. Farmers in these villages were mostly resource‐poor. More than two‐thirds of the farms are less than 2 ha, whereas no more than one‐fourth are 2–4 ha (Table 46). Landholdings greater than 4 ha are rare. Some farmers switched to maize and vegetables in recent years, while others leveled their land to grow improved rice (bunded uplands). The bunded uplands remained uncultivated in a few years prior to the Project because of failed monsoons. Farmers wanted to be involved in the Project for different reasons. Some could not invest in growing maize; for them, upland rice was a better option with low‐input management. For farmers in the maize‐grown area, upland rice was an alternative crop to be grown in rotation. Although the farmers in unbunded uplands wanted to grow upland rice for their home consumption, the farmers having bunded uplands were eager to try the new
90
shorter‐duration genotypes that could be grown under direct‐seeded conditions. Labor shortage was a serious problem in these villages, which is a premise that guided the CURE research to develop labor‐saving technologies. Table 46. Farm size and tenure status (% of households), CURE WG5 key site, Jharkhand State, India. Landholding classification
Kuchu, Ranchi District
Gidhore, Chatra District
Amnari, Hazaribag District
Landless 13 1 – Marginal (<1 ha) 29 40 57 Small (1–2 ha) 35 34 30 Medium (2–4 ha) 23 24 13 Large (>4 ha) – 1 1 Rice yields of traditional varieties grown in unbunded uplands average no more than 1.5 t ha–1. Low productivity of the rainfed system can result in food shortages as much as 8 months per year, which sets off male outmigration in search of income‐earning opportunities in the state and even in other urban areas of India. Farmers indicated a desire to improve crop productivity so they could stay in their village. In fact, farmers ranked low household income as the chief constraint to increasing productivity, whereas low productivity of the rainfed system and lack of income‐generating opportunities ranked second and third, respectively. Other highly ranked constraints were, in this order, nonavailability of short‐duration improved varieties, monocropping due to lack of irrigation, low rice yields from drought at the reproductive stage, labor shortage, insect damage at rice flowering, and weeds. Based on the socioeconomic surveys, WG5 developed this research plan:
• Selection of drought‐tolerant/drought‐avoiding genotypes with farmer participation; • Development of labor‐saving direct‐seeding line‐sowing practices that allow for earlier
rice establishment and the possibility of sowing a postrice sequence crop; • Development of improved nutrient management and weed control practices; and • Farmers’ training for seed health practices to produce good‐quality seeds.
Output 1.2 Feasible cropping innovations that combine complementary technologies for increasing productivity and reducing risks in rice‐based cropping systems developed and evaluated with farmers; experiences shared across key sites of the target rainfed environments Detailed outputs a. At least 10 improved varieties and advanced breeding lines evaluated in a minimum of eight farmers’
fields per key site with participation of farmers and extension service providers. The WG5 participatory varietal selection setup included researcher‐managed “mother” trials and farmer‐managed “baby” trials, both conducted in farmers’ fields. The 2004 mother trials
91
included 13 improved varieties/advanced lines and the traditional variety Brown Gora (Table 47) in two villages, while the baby trials tested 10 improved varieties/advanced lines in 40 farmers’ fields in three villages. Results for the mother trials showed that RR345‐2 and RR270‐56 were the high yielders across sites, followed by Anjali and Vandana. These materials gave a 29–100% yield increase over the traditional variety Brown Gora. Of these materials, farmers strongly preferred RR345‐2, RR270‐56, and Anjali. In general, these varieties also performed well in the baby trials, and farmers rated the new varieties as superior to their own variety for grain yield and overall acceptability. Farmers also mentioned that they would prefer a smaller set of genotypes and larger plot size for both mother and baby trials, although researchers would prefer to expose farmers to as many genotypes as possible to give them a wide choice for selection. As a result, the number of entries for the mother trials was reduced to six to eight, and the number of entries for the baby trials was reduced to either two or three. Table 47. Mother trials, two villages, Hazaribag key site, 2004‐06.
Yield (t ha–1) Genotype 2004 2005 2006
RR166‐645 1.23 NT NT RR270‐56 1.77 1.69 1.33 RR345‐2 1.90 2.29 2.05 RR354‐1 1.18 1.86 2.01 RR356‐74 0.74 NT NT RR363‐36 0.97 1.68 NT RR383‐22 0.94 1.72 1.44 RR385‐249 0.94 NT NT RR433‐1 1.06 NT NT DDR105 0.99 0.93 1.52 OR2085‐12 0.92 NT NT RR433‐2 NT NT 1.82 Anjali 1.66 2.64 2.06 Vandana 1.28 1.27 1.96 Brown Gora (traditional variety)
0.95 1.35 1.22
NT= not tested The 2005 PVS tested seven improved breeding lines, two released varieties, and Brown Gora in mother trials at two villages. The top yielders, Anjali, RR345‐2, RR345‐1, RR383‐22, and RR270‐56, could yield 33–107% higher than Brown Gora. The top entries also had straw yields similar to those of Brown Gora, which is important because straw is a major feed for cattle. Vandana and several other improved varieties showed lower‐than‐expected yields because of neck blast damage. Anjali and RR345‐2 were also the high yielders in the baby trials, which tested five varieties in 28 fields in two villages. Farmers expressed a strong desire to grow Anjali and RR345‐2 in the next season. Mother trials for eight genotypes of aerobic rice were established in two villages, but severe drought and termites destroyed the trial in one village. Drought also
92
affected the crop in the other village, but it did produce a low‐yielding crop. The top performer was Sadabahr, with yield of 1.88 t ha–1. The 2006 mother trials included eight breeding lines and released varieties, of which many were tested in 2005. The top yielder was Anjali, which yielded 68% more than Brown Gora. Other higher yielders were RR345‐2, RR354‐1, RR433‐2, and Vandana, which all yielded at least 49% more than Brown Gora. Anjali was the most preferred variety by farmers because of its productivity, long panicles, nonlodging characteristics, and responsiveness to fertilizers. The drought‐tolerant entry, Vandana, was preferred by few farmers because of its susceptibility to neck blast. In the baby trials, farmers also expressed high interest in Anjali among the other entries, Vandana, RR345‐2, and RR270‐56. b. At least one improved variety results in significantly higher productivity averaged over seasons,
including drought years. Anjali not only ranked high on yield tests in the three years of mother trials in the plateau uplands, but it was highly preferred by farmers largely due to its short duration (90–95 days) and resistance to neck blast that severely damaged other cultivars, namely, Vandana (which also has a short duration and is more drought tolerant). Anjali’s short duration allows farmers to harvest early when households have their most severe food shortages, and farmers can spread their harvesting operations over the harvest season, which allows them to use household labor rather than have to hire workers. The earlier harvest also gives farmers the chance to sow a postrice chickpea crop in years of sufficient residual soil moisture or late rains, which diversifies the rice‐based cropping system. New direct‐seeded crop establishment methods (discussed below) can enhance Anjali’s performance and stabilize rice production over the range of conditions that can be expected in this drought‐prone environment. Furthermore, another high‐yielder in these trials, the elite line RR345‐2, was nominated for national varietal testing and release through the All‐India Crop Improvement Programme. Farmers gave this line a favorable evaluation in the PVS. It is phenotypically similar to Brown Gora, but better‐yielding. c. At least 50% of cooperating farmers adopt/prefer improved breeding lines or released varieties over
their currently used variety. Although a formal quantitative survey was not conducted, there is strong evidence that Anjali is a favored variety in high demand. Each of the three villages at the key site had 15–20 farmer‐cooperators. The Working Group documented that 10 to 12 farmers from each village retained Anjali seed for sowing in the next year, while they also sold or exchanged surplus seeds to/with neighbors. In addition, WG5’s scaling up in 2007 distributed 2‐kg seed kits to 5–10 farmers in 10 new villages. Cooperating NGOs also distributed seed kits to 150 farmers in 2006 and 2007. Therefore, WG5 estimated that 300–400 farmers were sowing Anjali in 2007, not including seed obtained from farmer‐to‐farmer seed exchanges.
93
d. Improved establishment, nutrient, and weed management methods evaluated in a minimum of eight fields with participation of farmers and agricultural development workers.
WG5 tested a suite of new crop establishment practices for upland fields with five to six farmers in each of the three CURE villages in every year of the 2004‐06 original project term. During the 2007 extension, a package of Anjali with new crop establishment and nutrient management practices was scaled out to five or six farmers in 10 villages. These technologies were developed to give better weed control and crop growth, while saving labor and using more efficient seeding rates, compared with farmers’ traditional tiwai practice. Tiwai involves broadcast sowing rice with high seeding rates followed by plowing 3 days later. This practice loosens the upper crust to promote faster rice emergence, and it arrests early‐germinating weed seeds. Farmers use high seeding rates to compensate for seedling losses during plowing. In 2004, WG5 tested four establishment methods involving broadcast sowing, broadcasting in furrows, or seeding behind the plow, combined with one or two plow passes at different days after seeding, and with or without a treatment using a weeder. The control method was the farmers’ usual tiwai practice. A summary of the tested practices appears in Table 48. The on‐farm tests in Amnari and Kuchu villages showed that significantly lower weed biomass occurred with broadcast seeding in furrows (T2), and that seeding behind the plow had no advantage over broadcast sowing in terms of weed biomass. The best yields were recorded among both of these practices. However, the small plots were not convenient for the plow pass, and some farmers declined to pursue the second plow pass as they worried about damaging plants. In cases in which farmers made the second plow pass, some plants were damaged, but they recovered with more vigor and larger panicle size than nondamaged plants. The highest
Farmers speak out: improved rice variety Anjali favored for uplands rice fields Qualitative impact assessments allow farmers to say in their own words what they like or don’t like about a new technology. Such an assessment conducted in November 2006 at CURE’s key site for drought‐prone plateau uplands, Hazaribag, India, indicated that farmers had a high opinion of the blast‐resistant improved variety Anjali and there was also evidence of widespread interest beyond the CURE villages. As one farmer put it, “Other farmers have seen our fields, and they want seed from us.” During this visit, nonparticipating farmers approached the assessment team to inquire about obtaining Anjali for sowing in their fields. The assessment team also visited a nonparticipating village, Pawo in Chatra District, where farmers asked an NGO to supply Anjali seed for the 2007 growing season. The qualitative assessment is backed up by quantitative evidence. WG5 documented that Kuchu village farmers sold about 500 kg of Anjali seed to farmers in nearby villages. If all of the seed were sown, it would account for 5 ha of coverage, in addition to 10 ha sown by Kuchu farmers. In Amin village, farmers doubled the area sown with Anjali in 2005 and 2006. This amounted to a total of 6 ha sown in the latter year. These cases indicate the extent to which Anjali’s performance has earned farmers’ favor, and that they are committing more land to its production.
94
mean yield (2.29 t ha–1) was recorded when the crop was seeded behind the plow (T3), although all of the new establishment practices gave better yields than the tiwai system. Although seeding behind the plow is more advantageous, farmers preferred broadcasting in furrows, which needs less labor but gives slightly lower yields. The herbicide trials were inconclusive because a lack of moisture failed to activate the chemical for effective control. Table 48. Crop establishment treatments tested on‐farm, Hazaribag District. Treatment no. 2004 2005 2006 T1 Broadcast + tiwai 3 DAS Broadcast + tiwai,
manual weeding 30 DAS Broadcast + tiwai, manual weeding 30 DAS
T2 Broadcast in furrows + 2 plow passes (9–12, 20–22 DAS)
Broadcast in furrows + 2 plow passes (9–12, 20–22 DAS), manual weeding as needed
Broadcast in furrows + 1 plow pass (15–25 DAS), manual weeding as needed
T3 Seeding behind plow + interrow weeder twice (9 and 20 DAS)
Seeding behind the plow + wheel hoe (9 and 20 DAS), manual weeding as needed
Broadcast in furrows + wheel hoe (10, 20 DAS), manual weeding
T4 Broadcast + 2 plow passes (3 and 18–20 DAS)
Broadcast, + 2 plow passes (3 and 18–20 DAS), manual weeding as needed
Broadcast in furrows, 1 hand weeding
T5 Seeding behind plow + plow pass (18–20 DAS) + interrow weeder (30 DAS)
Seeding behind the plow + 1 plow pass (18–20 DAS) + wheel hoe (30 DAS), manual weeding as needed
Herbicide trials T1a Broadcast in furrows + tiwai T2a
Preemergence application of butachlor at 1.5 kg ha–1
The WG5 team narrowed the establishment practices to broadcast seeding in furrows for the 2006 test due to farmers’ expressed preference, and the fact that the previous two years’ research showed that it could be as effective as seeding behind the plow. The 2006 treatments differed by the intercultural operation for weed control, resulting in treatments that included one plow pass, a wheel operation, or handweeding. The new establishment practices resulted in yields higher than with tiwai, and the treatment that included one handweeding (T4) gave the highest yield of 2.87 t ha–1, or 0.60 t ha–1 more than tiwai. In general, all treatments, including tiwai, had higher productivity than in the previous years because of the well‐distributed rainfall throughout the growing season. However, the three‐year test showed that the new establishment systems were most effective under stress conditions relative to tiwai. Farmers mentioned that line‐sown crops allowed for easier weeding than in the scattered stand of broadcast fields. The plow pass, in particular, uprooted early weeds that could be removed with
95
one‐tenth of the labor used in manual weeding. Other advantages included improved in situ soil moisture conservation, increased light penetration of the canopy, and the plow pass or hoeing favored a timely nitrogen topdressing, which all enhanced the productivity of improved variety Anjali. Nutrient management The major finding of WG5’s nutrient management trials was that moderate increases in fertilizer rates above farmers’ practices not only improved yield under drought stress but also were adequately compensated by the price of the additional rice harvested. The tests evaluated new management practices against farmers’ usual practices by using traditional variety Brown Gora and improved varieties Anjali and Vandana. By the third year, farmers favored Anjali because of its fertilizer responsiveness and relative resistance to neck blast disease, which damaged Vandana heavily. The 2004 nutrient management trials involved a total of 10 farmers in Amnari, Amin, and Kuchu villages. Even though the on‐farm trials suffered from several setbacks (unavailability of single superphosphate fertilizer, considerable drought, suboptimal crop management, and use of the little‐responsive variety Vandana), resulting in a very small yield increase, most farmers wanted to continue the experiment for another season. The 2005 on‐farm trials involved a total of nine farmers in Amnari, Kuchu, and Amin villages. In these trials, farmers used urea and diammonium phosphate as N and P sources, while researchers monitored changes in weed and pest abundance during the growing season. The improved nutrient management increased the mean yield of Anjali by 350 kg ha–1 (16%) in 2005. In 2006, the fertilizer application schedule was modified (three splits instead of two) and integrated with the farmer‐preferred crop establishment practice of broadcasting in furrows followed by manual weeding or a wheel hoe operation. Due to favorable results in 2004 and 2005, Anjali was the only variety tested. The additional yield from improved nutrient management ranged from 0.13 to 1.14 t ha–1, with a mean increase of 0.5 t ha–1 across sites. Anjali’s fertilizer response without lodging and blast susceptibility gave farmers confidence that yields could be raised with moderate fertilizer rates. However, the soil heterogeneity due to denuded soils at one of the villages indicates that soil remediation may be necessary. e. Intercropping and relay‐cropping options evaluated by at least 10 farmers in three villages. In 2004, 23 farmers in Amin and Amnari villages planned to sow either Toria or Niger as postrice crops, while eight farmers in Kuchu village established a rice‐pigeon pea intercrop and planned to follow it with postrice Niger and linseed. Of these, the rice‐pigeon pea intercrop was the most successful, but rains at harvest delayed Kuchu farmers from sowing the follow‐on Niger crop in time. Linseed yield (0.25 t ha–1) was poor. At the other villages, a lack of adequate soil moisture prevented farmers from sowing a postrice crop, although they expressed a
96
continued interest in this practice. Researchers also gained other valuable insights that need to be considered when implementing postrice crops. For example, community cooperation is needed to control cattle grazing on postharvest rice lands. Also, male outmigration after the rice harvest limits households’ ability to conduct field operations to establish a postrice crop, and some farmers are unable to hire draft animals for field operations at this time. In 2005, four to five farmers in Kuchu and Amnari villages took up postrice linseed and rapeseed, whereas Kuchu village also opted for the rice‐pigeon pea intercrop. Poor rainfall after 15 September resulted in very low soil moisture after rice, and farmers abandoned the postrice crops. However, farmers who established the intercrop were able to harvest both rice and pigeon pea. Pigeon pea not only improves soil fertility through N fixation but also improves soil conditions by contributing leaf litter. The crop’s susceptibility to Fusarium wilt is a constraint to growing pigeon pea in continuous years. Alternating rice‐pigeon pea as an intercrop with a rice‐linseed or rice‐rapeseed sequence in the following year is suggested as an alternative. Building on two years of favorable results, the rice‐pigeon pea intercrop was implemented in 2006 at Kuchu and Amin using a banded lime treatment in the acidic soils of the former village, and no liming in the latter. Pigeon pea growth was better at Amin, where soils were less acidic and more fertile. Of the varieties tested, the wilt‐resistant ICPL 0.10 and high‐yielding variety Lakshmi outperformed local varieties, although beetles (Myrabilis jalapa) affected the former varieties. Yields ranged from 0.2 to 1.0 t ha–1. As a result of three years of testing, researchers have been able to narrow the varietal selection criteria for pigeon pea to the following variables: resistance to wilt and sterility mosaic virus, longer duration to avoid beetle activity and pod borer infestation, and synchrony of flowering. The research has also concluded that banding lime is advantageous for pigeon pea in acidic soils, and that growing pigeon pea is not feasible in bunded uplands. A chickpea sequence crop was sown after the rice harvest in the three villages, but only Lupung had a good stand in loamy soils, although germination was subnormal. Lupung had a good yield of 1.5 t ha–1, but soil moisture after rice was inadequate in the other villages for the 2006 sequence cropping trials. Given the experience from three years, it was concluded that the rice‐chickpea sequence is not a viable option. Furthermore, researchers have firmly concluded that chickpea is not feasible in upland red soils. f. Improved seed purification and storage methods evaluated by a minimum of five farmers in each of
three villages, with participation of extension service providers. In 2004, farmers had the chance to evaluate the performance of crops that were sown with seeds harvested in the prior year by the panicle (preferred) method and farmers’ usual bulk method. This allowed farmers to evaluate the performance of improved seed health management practices, using improved rice varieties Vandana and Anjali. Both varieties sown with panicle‐harvested seed yielded almost 1.60 t ha–1, or 6–9% more than the crop sown with bulk‐harvested seed. Panicle selection, though, had no influence on panicle characteristics such as weight,
97
length, and percentage of filled grain, as with the bulk‐harvested crop. Farmers’ indigenous storage systems were found to maintain seed viability and were concluded to be effective. These practices consist of either a sack suspended from the house ceiling rafters, dharan, or a woven bamboo basket sealed with mud‐cow dung, gaza. Farmers store the dried leaves of a wild sedge (Vitex negundo, local name senwar) as a biopesticide with the stored grain. In 2005, five farmers each in Amnari, Kuchu, and Amin villages sowed seeds that were panicle‐harvested and bulk‐harvested (from either on‐farm or on‐station sources) in 2004 to evaluate crop performance. In all cases, the crop sown with panicle‐harvested seed outyielded the crop sown with bulk‐harvested seed. The difference was a 0.4–10% yield improvement for Anjali and a 3–30% yield improvement for Vandana. However, the absolute yield for Vandana was much lower than for Anjali because of neck blast damage. The crops were then either bulk‐harvested or panicle‐harvested and stored in one of the following ways: dharan/gaza practice or an airtight recycled PVC oil container, either way stored with or without biopesticide. In May 2006, IRRI’s seed health consultant sampled stored seed from 17 households in the three villages and concluded that “the majority of Hazaribag farmers were keeping clean seeds.”8 Moisture content ranged from 9.1% to 11.7%, well within the range of the 12% recommendation. The lowest percentage of stored clean seed was about 70%, which was recorded on three farms; otherwise, the proporation of clean seed was in the 80–90% range. The majority of farmers’ seeds were highly viable with >80% germination. Therefore, it was determined that no interventions were required to improve farmers’ seed storage practices. The 2006 seed health field trials involved sowings of Anjali that were either bulk‐ or panicle‐harvested in 2005 by five farmers each in two villages and in an on‐station demonstration plot. The seed managed by proper methods yielded 20% more than the bulk‐harvested seed. Furthermore, some farmers were gaining a reputation as quality seed producers and were actually selling seed to farmers in their or neighboring villages. g. Improved methods result in significantly higher system productivity and income, averaged over
seasons. WG5’s major achievement is the development of an integrated crop establishment system for improved varieties that can stabilize rice yields across the range of environmental conditions that can be expected in the drought‐prone plateau uplands. The iterative process of farmer participatory research narrowed down various experimental crop establishment practices to broadcasting in furrows as farmer‐acceptable and effective. The most advantageous practice is seeding behind the plow, but it is preferred only in villages used to a similar practice for other crops. Line‐sown practices can achieve results in unfavorable years that farmers’ traditional tiwai establishment practice sown with the traditional variety Brown Gora can achieve only in a
8 Elazegui F. 2006. Report on Trip to CURE Site in Hazaribag, 9‐14 May 2006. Unpublished trip report. Los Baños, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute.
98
favorable year. The line‐sown crops yielded 81% and 60% over tiwai‐established Brown Gora in 2004 and 2005, respectively, while also giving an impressive 26% increase in the favorable 2007 season (Table 49). This corresponds to almost a 1 t ha–1 yield increase in unfavorable years. In all cases, the line‐sown crop achieved more than 2.0 t ha–1, which the tiwai‐established crop could achieve only in a favorable year. Table 49. Traditional vs. improved establishment practices, three years of tests, Hazaribag.
Yield (t ha–1) Parameter 2004
(unfavorable) 2005
(unfavorable) 2006
(favorable) Traditional tiwai establishment 1.17 1.43 2.27
Improved line‐sown establishment 2.12 a 2.29 b 2.87 c
Mean yield 1.61 1.96 2.44 Yield improvement in t ha–1 (%) 0.95 (81) 0.86 (60) 0.60 (26) a Broadcast in furrows followed by a plow pass. b Seeding behind the plow followed by a wheel hoe. c Broadcast in furrows, followed by one hand weeding. The defined rows, established by line‐sowing practices, have distinctive advantages for weed control and labor cost savings. The plow pass uproots the early weeds that could be removed by using one‐tenth of the manpower normally required for manual weeding. Farmers appreciate the labor savings because they can better coordinate the more labor‐intensive transplanting tasks required in lowland fields at about the same time. Furthermore, less labor is required for the follow‐up hand weeding. The plow pass and hoeing, both of which are followed by a hand weeding, save 13% and 25% in labor costs compared with the tiwai system (Table 50). In field interviews, farmers also said that the improved productivity of Anjali saves them the prospect of having to buy rice for several months, and they can invest the savings in their children’s education. Table 50. Gross costs, various weeding practices, Hazaribag
Activity No. of labor days + draft power ha–1
Rate (Indian rupees
day–1)
Subtotal cost
Total cost % diff. from tiwai
Tewai + one light hand weeding
11 pair of cattle with plowman + 50 labor days (female)
150 60
1,650 3,000 4,650 –
Plow pass + removal of uprooted weeds
18 pair of cattle with plowman + 5 labor days (female)
150 60
2,700 300
3,000 –13
Hoeing + removal of uprooted weeds
42 labor days (male) + 5 labor days (female)
75 60
3,150 300
3,450 –25
99
Manual clean weeding (control)
200 laboring days (female) 60 12,000 12,000 +430
h. At least 50% of cooperating farmers adopt one or more components of improved technology. As discussed in section c above, there is strong evidence from WG5’s work in the three CURE villages that as many as two‐thirds of the participating farmers adopted the improved variety Anjali, and they were so convinced of its performance that they exchanged seed with other farmers. Of the 15–20 participating farmers in each village, 10–12 farmers in each village continued to sow Anjali after its introduction. Furthermore, farmers reported in focus group discussions in November 2006 that adoption of Anjali could improve household food security by about 2 months. While annual food insecurity varied by 6 to 8 months, depending on household, the farmers appreciated that the increased production saved them from having to purchase food to make up the difference. They reported that money saved from food purchases was being invested back into the household, namely, in children’s education. They viewed the improved productivity from such technologies as a way to reduce male migration to urban areas to earn money to buy food. “When we are able to fill our bellies, why would we leave the village?” one farmer said. “If we can grow enough food, why would we need to leave the village?” i. Guidelines available to extension services for adaptation into locally available extension materials. To effectively reach farmers beyond CURE sites, WG5 has been working with 20 NGOs on disseminating seeds, establishment systems, and new management practices throughout northern Jharkhand State. Extension agencies have limited capacity and are hampered by security threats in politically troubled areas. Therefore, CURE asked government agricultural officers to recommend NGOs that can best serve farmers in far‐flung areas, that is, six northern districts of Jharkhand. The Working Group launched this outreach with an orientation workshop in May 2006 to discuss the technologies and potentials for raising crop productivity. Since that workshop, CURE distributed 300 kg of seed of improved varieties each in 2006 and 2007, while NGOs supplemented their seed stocks by purchasing 500 kg of seed in each of these two years. Overall, 1,600 kg of seed plus information about new cropping practices were distributed to NGOs in these two years. NGOs with adequate facilities indicated they were multiplying Anjali seed for distribution in 2007‐08. CURE also responded to NGOs’ requests for Abhishek seed to meet the demand of farmers who were impressed with its performance at CURE on‐station trials. This variety is suitable for bunded uplands and medium lands. To further disseminate the research findings of this project, WG5 developed the following printed materials in local languages that were either distributed with the seed kits or else provided to farmers and NGOs during training sessions:
• “Anjali (rice)—a suitable variety for Don 3” (Don 3 zamin ke liye ʹAnjaliʹ (dhan) ek behathar kism)
100
• “A new rice variety for Don 2 of Jharkhand” (Jharkhand mein don 2 bhumi ke liye dhan ki nai kism Abhishek)
In addition, WG5 has prepared publications on intercropping practices and on a package of integrated crop management practices that will be printed in early 2008 for distribution to NGOs and farmers. Output 2 Knowledge distilled into decision tools, management principles, and operational guidelines that are extension‐ready; extrapolation domains of improved production systems identified. Working Group 5 conducted two major workshops at each of which were distributed 500 seed kits containing 2 kg of new improved varieties, and operational guidelines for improved crop establishment/management practices, to 20 nongovernmental organizations engaged in technology scaling out in Jharkhand State. The first workshop was in May 2006, at which WG5 distributed seed kits of short‐duration blast‐resistant Anjali for upland sowings, and Shivam, a favored variety for lowlands. The research team chose Anjali based on its good performance and farmers’ favorable evaluations in on‐farm PVS trials in the drought‐ and blast‐prone cropping seasons of 2004 and 2005. Furthermore, WG5 instructed NGO staffs on new dry direct‐line seeding practices that could enhance Anjali’s performance, save time and labor, and also provide good weed control, for establishing rice in bunded and unbunded uplands. In June 2007, a similar workshop was conducted to implement the scaling out of CURE technologies during the one‐year project extension. The seed kit consisted of both Anjali and Abhishek, which has been in demand by farmers who observed its performance in on‐station experimental plots.9 Abhishek is blast‐resistant, has a 125‐day duration, and yields 6.0–7.0 t ha–1. Overall, more than 1,600 kg of seed was supplied in 2006 and 2007 to NGOs, which distributed it to farmers in the six northern districts of Jharkhand. NGOs with seed multiplication facilities were producing additional seed stocks of Anjali to meet farmers’ increasing demand. WG5 has also conducted its own scaling out of seed and crop management practices to 100 farmers in 10 villages in northern Jharkhand State in the one‐year project extension (2007). In support of the scaling out, and to make these technologies available to farmers even after project termination, the following titles were printed in local languages:
• “Anjali ‘rice’—a suitable variety for Don 3” and • “A new rice variety for Don 2 of Jharkhand.”
WG5 is planning to expand its range of printed materials in 2008 with publications on the rice‐pigeon pea intercropping system and integrated crop management practices for rice.
9 Shivam, the lowland variety used in the 2006 distribution, was renamed Abhishek in accordance with the national protocol for naming new varieties.
101
Having distilled the knowledge gained from the research conducted in the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project, the Working Group presented management principles and operational guidelines in a poster titled “Energy‐ and resource efficient technologies for the establishment and management of upland rice‐based systems” (Variar et al 2006) at the Second International Rice Congress in New Delhi, 9‐13 Oct. 2006. WG5 also conducted several promotional activities to demonstrate the performance of the new improved varieties and crop management practices to as many farmers as possible. Several hundred men and women farmers attended a 27 Sept. 2005 field day at Amin village. To facilitate a cross‐site visit, transportation was provided to farmers from Amnari and Kuchu villages, although hundreds of farmers came from other areas on their own accord. Farmers engaged in PVS trials, and were also able to consult with research team members about technologies that could improve their farms’ productivity. Researchers and government officials also gave presentations on the potential for the new technologies. Other field days conducted similar programs on 7 Oct. 2006 at Lupung village, attended by 150 farmers, and on 7 Oct. 2007 at Sindhrawen village, attended by 600–700 farmers. Cross‐site visits during the growing season were an important activity for farmers to see their co‐agriculturalists’ implementation of the new technologies, and this also allowed farmer‐to‐farmer and farmer‐to‐researcher discussions about their potential for improving productivity. However, it was not always possible to conduct cross‐site visits every year because of adverse weather, and, even in favorable years, farmers were sometimes too busy with cropping tasks to spare time during the crop growth period. Seed health training for producing quality seed Implementing the principles and operational guidelines of seed health management was a going concern of WG5’s work in CURE villages even prior to the initiation of the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project. However, the project support was crucial in allowing the research team to follow up on farmers’ previous training and to monitor their progress in implementing seed health management procedures with the guidance of an IRRI consultant. Early in the project, the team documented indigenous seed health management and storage practices, and obtained feedback on farmers’ perceptions of their practices. Farmers stored seeds in a woven bamboo basket sealed with a cow dung‐mud mixture, or gaza, which was found to be an acceptable method. Samples of seeds taken from these storage systems in the 2004‐05 off‐season were found to have acceptable moisture levels and germination ratings. This was significant because it meant that farmers did not have to invest in new technologies, and they could just continue their traditional seed storage practices with no adverse effects on seed quality/health. Also in 2004, WG5 launched seed health management experiments by collecting seeds that were bulk‐harvested (farmers’ practice) and panicle‐harvested (preferred method), and then distributing them to farmers to plant in 2005 for comparison purposes. The IRRI seed health consultant visited on 23‐27 Aug. 2005 to observe the fields and to provide refresher training to farmers. At harvest, farmers observed that the crop planted from panicle‐harvested seed had better grain
102
yield, more filled grains, and better panicle length, thus reinforcing what they had learned from the training. The IRRI seed health consultant returned on 9‐14 May 2006 to find that farmers made good progress in following these practices as indicated by the quality of seed samples taken from storage. Seed moisture content was acceptable at 9.1–11.7% as it did not exceed the 12% threshold. A majority of farmers’ seeds had viable germination ratings greater than 80%. Furthermore, it was found that a majority of samples were free of weed seed and had high acceptable percentages of clean seeds. The consultant concluded that the majority of farmers were keeping clean seeds, but also identified the remaining farmers who would need continued monitoring and additional training. Output 3 Capacity of NARES strengthened for implementing integrative and participatory technology development and dissemination. The key staff members of WG5 were familiarized with farmer participatory methods in a training activity conducted after the 2004 CURE Steering Committee meeting in Ubon, Thailand. Throughout the life of the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project, the team conducted participatory experiments, which were crucial in identifying effective crop establishment/management methods that were acceptable to farmers, as well as diversification options (pigeon pea intercrop) that were viable in the context of the drought‐prone plateau uplands. In addition, it was through the effective implementation of PVS that WG5 identified new germplasm, Anjali, which achieved widespread acceptability among farmers. To enhance its farmer participatory research, the key site nominated Mrs. Sandhya Pradhan, head of Adarsh Path NGO, Chatra District, to attend the participatory approaches workshop at IRRI so she could support WG5’s activities in this remote district of Jharkhand State. Members of the WG5 research team also updated their technical skills by receiving training in the IRRISTAT version 4.4 statistical program when they were at IRRI HQs to attend a joint WG1‐5 planning and review meeting in 2005. Specific details of these training activities follow in Table 51. Table 51. NARES’ capacity‐building activities, CURE WG5‐Hazaribag.
Training course/activity WG5‐Hazaribag participants Innovative Research Methods and Strategies for Conducting Research in Rainfed Environments Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand 4 June 2004
Dr. Edwin Javier, Working Group co‐leader; Dr. Mukund Variar, key site coordinator
IRRISTAT ver. 4.4 statistical program IRRI HQs, Los Baños, Philippines 28 Feb.‐1 March 2005
Dr. P.K. Sinha, Dr. Mukund Variar, Dr. D. Maiti
Participatory Approaches for Agricultural Research & Extension IRRI HQs, Los Baños, Philippines 21 Nov.‐2 Dec. 2005
Mrs. Sandhya Pradhan
103
Output 4 Farmer acceptability and viability of innovative production systems assessed; policymakers and development authorities sensitized on supporting sector needs for wider adoption. The Jharkhand State Agriculture Department has limited resources for supporting widescale adoption of CURE technologies. WG5 has engaged agricultural officials whenever possible to make them aware of the new technologies and also to seek contacts with alternative organizations for technology dissemination. Consequently, it was the agricultural officials who provided needed contacts with local NGOs for scaling out the new technological products to wider reaches of Jharkhand. Both officials and representatives of NGOs attended the 12 May 2006 meeting to launch the technology dissemination effort as discussed in Output 2. The implementation of farmer participatory methods, that is, PVS trials and on‐farm experimentation with crop establishment/management practices, was instrumental in developing new technologies into tangible products that could be disseminated to farmers. However, the research team also sought social science input from an IRRI anthropologist who conducted focus group discussions at the three CURE villages on 23‐27 Sept. 2005 to obtain men and women farmers’ feedback about constraints to and opportunities for technology adoption. The anthropologist followed up with a visit to assess impact at three CURE villages and several non‐project villages served by NGOs, on 31 Oct.‐2 Nov. 2006. Overall, the assessment documented farmers’ keen interest in Anjali, and they were also sowing improved varieties/hybrids in the lowlands. Based on the upland area sown, farmers believed Anjali’s performance could improve household food security by 1 or 2 months, which could ease the financial burden of having to buy rice to make up for shortages that can be as much as 8 months per year. Anjali’s widespread acceptance was indicated by farmers’ favorable comments about yield, and their intentions to save seed for sowing next year and/or to exchange/sell it to interested farmers. They were also very interested in diversifying their rice‐based cropping system by sowing postrice chickpea or by intercropping pigeon pea. Finally, a village (Lupung) that was familiar with dry direct seeding for other crops was interested in using this practice for rice, whereas farmers in the other CURE villages were still experimenting with these practices with no conclusive results yet in terms of convincing them to adopt them. F.1 Working Group 6 for intensive upland systems with a long growing season University of Southern Mindanao (USM) Arakan Valley, Philippines Output 1.1 Baseline information on farmer households, cropping practices, constraints, existing data sets, technologies, and recommendations made available The socioeconomic characterization of the WG6 key site at Arakan Valley was compiled through a benchmark survey conducted among 106 farm households in six villages in 2004. The
104
team also drew upon a participatory rural appraisal conducted in the prior year to obtain a more complete picture of household makeup, crops grown, farming practices, farmers’ problems, and their constraints to and opportunities for adoption. The benchmark survey, supplemented by secondary data from the Municipal Agricultural Office, found sparsely situated homesteads, some of which were accessible only by foot, horse, or motorcycle. These difficulties in achieving a complete enumeration limited the survey to upland farmsteads that could be reached by a 1‐km walking distance from the main road. The survey differentiated households among three types:
• Resource‐poor, small‐scale farms (50%); cropping area ranging from less than 1 ha to 2 ha. Upland rice area was usually 0.25 to 0.50 ha cultivated for home consumption, and at least 1 ha was planted in corn for marketing.
• Diversified and medium‐sized farms (30%); cropping area ranging from 2.0 to 5.0 ha. These have a larger area for upland rice (at least 1 ha) and corn (nearly 2 ha).
• Resource‐adequate and large‐scale farms (20%); cropping area averaging 12 ha. Farmers grew upland rice, corn, and other perennials.
Farmers have been sowing the traditional variety Dinorado for about 30 years, but seed quality and yield have declined. Dinorado is favored for its aroma and good eating and cooking qualities that attract high prices due to demand for fiestas, weddings, and menus of specialty restaurants. However, upland rice yields were declining since the mid‐1990s, and area planted declined sevenfold from 2,753 ha in 1994 to 377 ha in 2002. This decline was attributed to a) decreasing soil fertility due to soil erosion, b) weeds, c) high seed costs, and d) lack of credible seed sources. Upland area planted in rice expanded to 2,598 ha in 2003 and remained above 2,000 ha per year during the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project after CURE and the Municipal Agricultural Officer (MAO) joined efforts to introduce new technologies. Based on the baseline and benchmark survey, WG6 recommended the following interventions:
• Rice varietal improvement and natural resource management to purify Dinorado and other locally available traditional varieties;
• Rice genetic diversification to reduce risk of pests, buffer against crop failure, and make new varieties available; and
• Crop diversification through the mixed cropping of rice with nonrice crops, such as mungbean, peanut, corn, and soybean.
Output 1.2 Cropping systems options using disease‐resistant varieties developed and validated with farmers, for increasing crop diversity for reduced risk, improving productivity, and conserving traditional varieties through active use. Detailed Outputs
105
a. At least 50 farming households at each key site actively engaging in testing and validating technologies with researchers, extension personnel, and NGOs.
Working Group 6‐Arakan Valley surpassed the objective of having at least 50 farming households actively involved in technology development. One example is the community seed bank, which is an organization of farmers who agree to follow proper seed health management practices. Although the number of members varied during the life of the project, the CSB had counted a membership of 45 farmers by 2007. Furthermore, the CSB had transformed itself from an informal network in 2006 into a formal organization guided by a board of directors and officers, which granted the CSB members the possibility to sustain these practices in the community. Participating farmers in participatory variety selection easily outnumbered 150 during the project, while crop diversification trials involved from 12 to 21 farmers, depending on the year. Participation in developing these latter technologies is discussed in section “b” below. In total, farmer participation was three or four times more than the objective of having at least 50 farmers involved in technology development. b. At least 115 farmers validating introduced technologies (100 for PVS, 10 for rice diversification, and
five for crop diversification). W6‐Arakan Valley considerably surpassed the farmer participation goals in validating the major technologies developed at this key site. The actual numbers of participants are mentioned in section “c” for participatory varietal selection, and in section “e” for rice genetic diversification and mixed cropping. In sum, the Working Group reported that more than 170 farmers evaluated researcher‐managed “mother” trials for the 2005‐07 period. For the farmer‐managed “baby” trials, more than 200 farmers were evaluators for the period that included two years of the preproject period and the three years (2004‐06) of the original project life. Furthermore, the Working Group conducted sensory evaluations of cooked rice from these trials, which involved at least 250 farmers, traders, and consumers for each of three years’ (2005‐07) tests. Mixed cropping trials involved 12 farmers during the on‐farm experimental phase in 2006, and in a scaling out to 21 farmers in the one‐year project extension. In addition, the scaling up involved 54 farms participating in the Department of Agriculture’s Model Rice Farms program in 2007, both within and outside of the geographic confines of the Arakan Valley municipality. Furthermore, researchers often observed that fields of nonparticipating farmers were planted in mixed crops, which indicated that this technology had spread beyond the CURE cooperators’ farms. For rice genetic diversification, five farmers were involved in on‐farm tests in 2005, and 17 farmers participated in the scale‐up in 2006. However, due to the limitations of this technology, only two farmers were actually using the researchers’ suggested row arrangement of at least two rice varieties. Farmers’ modifications have been observed such as planting two or three upland rice varieties by parcels in the same field by 2007.
106
c. At least 15 improved varieties, advanced breeding lines, and farmer‐preferred traditional varieties evaluated in farmers’ fields by cooperating farmers at both key sites with participation of extension personnel.
Participatory varietal selection During each year of the project and the one‐year extension, from 12 to 21 advanced lines/improved varieties were evaluated by farmers, researchers, and extensionists in either researcher‐managed “mother” trials or in farmer‐managed “baby” trials. The mother trials were conducted at the CURE demonstration site at Sitio Dilion, Poblacion Arakan, North Cotabato Province, while baby trials were conducted in as many as five barangays in Arakan Valley. By obtaining new rice lines/varieties from IRRI, the Philippines Rice Research Institute (PhilRice), and the National Cooperative Test, CURE was able to test materials capable of achieving higher productivity above Arakan Valley’s average 1.58 t ha–1 yield recorded at the project inception. Some lines/varieties such as UPL Ri‐5, IR72768‐8‐1‐1, and IR74371‐54‐1‐1 were tested over the duration of the project because of their good performance and acceptability as indicated from farmers’ evaluations. Other varieties were dropped, and others added, during the various years, based on performance and farmer acceptability. We note that UPL Ri‐5 is particularly significant because this improved variety has grain quality and agronomic characteristics similar to those of farmers’ highly preferred aromatic traditional variety, Dinorado, but it is higher yielding. As a result, farmers could grow it for home consumption without sacrificing the quality of their traditional variety, and they could save Dinorado for marketing and fetch a higher price for it in the local specialty markets. The CURE site’s mother trials were incorporated into the Philippines’ national varietal testing and release program, the National Cooperative Test (NCT). This assured that farmers’ feedback on the acceptability of the new materials could be assessed by plant breeders in developing new varieties. The mother trials evaluated the NCT lines/varieties as part of the overall test, whereas the 2007 mother trials were divided into an “informal” evaluation for CURE and a “formal” evaluation for the NCT (Table 52). Table 52. Yield and farmers’ preferences, 2007 formal and informal mother trials (top three performers only).
Informal mother trials Formal mother trials (NCT)
Line/ variety
Top yielders (t ha–1)
Line/ variety
Yield (t ha–1) of
farmers’ top rankings
Line/ variety
Top yielders (t ha–1)
Line/ variety
Yield (t ha–1) of
farmers’ top rankings
IRO6U101 4.13 IRO6U102 3.93 UPL Ri‐7 1.94 Malay 3 1.58 IRO6U102 3.93 PR2923‐18‐
B‐2 2.01 UPL Ri‐7 1.94 NSIC Rc11
(check) 2.06
NSIC Rc‐9 3.59 UPL Ri‐5 3.73 PR31132‐B‐1‐1‐1‐3‐3
1.78 PR29211‐3‐B‐9‐1‐1‐11
2.10
107
Typically, farmers’ evaluations were conducted at crop maturity in the mother trials (Table 53). However, the 2005 trials also included an evaluation at the panicle initiation stage in order to obtain data on how farmers evaluate crops during the growing season. The number of farmers involved in the evaluations (at maturity) were 43 in 2005, 57 in 2006, and 74 in 2007. Combined with the preproject period (2002‐06), WG6‐Arakan estimates that nearly 550 baby trials involved more than 200 farmers in six villages of Arakan Valley. The dispersed locations of these trials assured that farmers could receive new materials in far‐flung areas where road infrastructure is poor. This process also allowed farmers to test the lines/varieties under local conditions, such as weather and soil types, of this diverse environment. The villages involved were Anapolon, Doroluman, Kabalantian, Malibatuan, Naje, and Poblacio. Since the trials were established in noncontiguous areas, a full‐time research assistant was asked to stay in the municipality throughout the duration of the study in order to regularly monitor the trials. Consumer sensory evaluations of rice lines/varieties The WG6‐Arakan Valley team took the mother‐baby trials one step further by conducting consumer preference tests on the sensory qualities of the rice lines/varieties grown. While plant breeders develop rice varieties for good yield and agronomic characteristics, consumers are the final arbitrators of the acceptability of new varieties in terms of taste, appearance, color, texture, and cooking quality. The sensory tests thus sought to build bridges between scientists and consumers by obtaining information about the lines’/varieties’ sensory qualities. In addition, these evaluations sought to launch discussions between farmers and traders on consumer preferences, so they could harmonize their efforts in adding value to rice in the field‐to‐dinner table chain. The evaluators consisted of three groups: farmers, consumers, and traders, who were mostly from Arakan Valley, but also from other areas of Mindanao, and even the Visayas and Luzon. Table 53. Average yields of top performers, mother trials, 2002‐06.
Average yield (t ha–1) Ranking Upland rice entries 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Average
1. PR26420‐3‐B‐B‐4 (NCT)
2.99 3.51 3.25
2. IR74371‐3‐1‐1 ‐ 3.15 2.81 2.98
3. PR31132‐B‐1‐1‐1 (NCT) 2.94 2.91 2.92
4. NSIC Rc‐9 4.26 1.29 3.10 2.95 2.90 5. IR72768‐8‐1‐1 (DR90) 4.09 4.23 1.33 2.99 1.21 2.77 6. IR74371‐54‐1‐1 2.95 4.28 1.95 2.87 1.76 2.76 7. PR28877‐9‐B‐2 (NCT) 3.07 2.44 2.76 8. PR2923‐18‐B‐2 (NCT) 3.04 2.37 2.71 9. UPL Ri‐5 3.98 3.81 0.95 2.05 2.26 2.61 10. PR23798‐1‐7‐2 (NCT) 3.15 1.95 2.55
108
11. PR23798‐2‐8‐3 (NCT) 2.96 2.09 2.52 12. PR27777‐9‐B (NCT) 2.88 1.97 2.42 13. IR75502‐24‐1‐1‐B 1.79 2.65 2.78 2.41 14. Minerva (NCT) 2.35 2.23 2.29
15. PR26406‐9‐B‐B‐2 (NCT) 2.62 1.77 2.19
16. PR23709‐10 0.48 1.82 3.04 1.78 17. NSIC Rc‐15 1.77 1.77 18. PR27792‐B‐B (NCT) 1.38 2.09 1.74 19. Dinorado 2.19 0.96 0.90 1.60 0.91 1.31 20. IR64 1.12 1.12 21. NSIC Rc‐13 0.90 0.90 In general, there were differences in how these groups evaluated cooked rice, but they found all samples acceptable. The sensory tests confirmed the wisdom of farmers’ longstanding desire to grow Dinorado, as it topped the 2005 and 2006 tests (Table 54). Although Dinorado was not tested in 2007, an improved variety, UPL Ri‐5, with characteristics similar to those of the traditional favorite, was on top. In the discussion, traders reported high demand for Dinorado, and consumers are willing to pay a higher price due to its excellent eating quality and aroma—again confirming farmers’ judgment in growing Dinorado. To further fine‐tune the evaluations, a sensory test was conducted on three Azucena accessions and six Dinorado accessions chosen from the 2005 observational nursery trials. Overall, Dinorado (Cel)‐1 and Azucena (ACC 47124)‐1 ranked first among the accessions tested. Table 54. Rice sensory tests of varieties/lines in mother‐baby trials, Arakan Valley.
Rank 2005 N = 252
2006 N = 252
2007 N = 327
1. Dinorado Dinorado UPL Ri‐5 2. NISC Rc‐11 NSIC Rc‐9 PR26420‐3‐B‐B‐4 3. NSIC Rc‐9 NSIC Rc‐11 NSIC Rc‐9 4. UPLRi‐5 UPL Ri‐5 PR2877‐9‐B‐2
5. IR74371‐54‐1‐1 IR72768‐8‐1‐1 &IR74371‐54‐1‐1
PR23709‐10
6. IR72768‐8‐1‐1 – IR74371‐3‐1‐1 7. IR74371‐3‐1‐1 – PR31132‐B‐1‐1‐1 Observational nursery trials of traditional rice varieties Although improved varieties can improve farmers’ rice productivity, farmers in Arakan Valley also prefer to grow their lower‐yielding traditional varieties that are aromatic and good‐tasting and fetch a higher price in local specialty markets. To enhance the genetic stocks of Dinorado, WG6‐Arakan Valley established an observational nursery to evaluate new accessions of Dinorado and a related variety, Azucena, under the environmental conditions of Arakan Valley.
109
In addition, the observational nursery also tested local varieties collected from farmers in Arakan Valley. The nursery was established along a main road at Dilion, Poblacion, Arakan, North Cotabato Province, allowing farmers to obtain it at any time. The researchers used it as an outdoor laboratory, where they organized educational activities and farmers’ formal evaluations of these traditional materials. The data collected were also valuable to scientists to ascertain new sources of genes that express farmer‐preferred characteristics for future breeding purposes. Through the original three‐year term of the ADB‐RETA Project, WG6‐Arakan Valley evaluated an average of nearly 50 traditional cultivars per year, documenting yield, agronomic characteristics, and farmers’ preferences (Table 55). During the one‐year project extension, the nursery showcased 91 entries, including IRRI upland lines from previous weed competitiveness trials, lowland varieties, and local cultivars collected from farmers. Table 55. Numbers of entries, observational nursery, Arakan Valley. Cultivar/line 2004 2005 2006 2007 Dinorado 19 22 19 0 Azucena 22 19 4 0 Local varieties 12 0 25 29 Other 0 0 0 63 Total 53 41 48 92 Both researchers and farmers learned from the process of cultivating traditional varieties in the observational nursery. One lesson was that timing of planting is important for assuring productivity of these materials, particularly for Dinorado. Farmers’ usual earlier planting (March and April) achieved good yields, whereas the crops planted later (May) in the nursery had very poor stands. Another lesson was that Azucena accessions could achieve yields of at least 2.00 t ha–1, or double that of Dinorado, under the harsh environmental conditions of Arakan Valley (Table 56). However, farmers still preferred Dinorado for its eating quality. Finally, researchers learned that when a variety meets farmers’ criteria for eating quality, they prioritize yield over agronomic characteristics in varietal selection.
Table 56. Yield of the recurring entries over three cropping seasons, observational nursery, Arakan Valley.
Grain yield (t ha–1) Entry
2004 2005 2006 Dinorado (IRTP 12568)‐1 1.00 1.44 0.92 Dinorado (IRTP 12568)‐2 0.90 1.63 – Dinorado (IRTP12568)‐3 0.80 1.77 0.65 Dinorado (IRTP 12568)‐4 0.40 1.45 1.01 Dinorado (IRTP 12568)‐5 0.30 1.23 0.14 Dinorado (IRTP15545) (Acc. 52893)‐1 0.70 1.84 0.46
Dinorado (IRTP 15545) (Acc. 52893)‐2 0.70 1.70 0.46
110
Dinorado (IRTP 15545) (Acc. 52893)‐3 1.00 0.97 –
Dinorado (IRTP 15545) (Acc. 52893)‐4 0.50 1.74 0.18
Dinorado (IRTP 15545) (Acc. 52893)‐5 0.30 1.50 0.091 Dinorado (Acc. 52893)‐1 0.80 1.18 0.092 Dinorado (Acc. 30333)‐1 – 1.77 0.65 Dinorado (Acc. 53012)‐1 – 0.48 0.92 Dinorado (Acc. 80385)‐1 – 0.97 – Dinorado (Acc. 80386)‐1 0.80 1.88 0.56 Dinorado (Acc. 96107)‐1 0.30 1.63 0.092 Dinorado (Acc. 96108)‐1 0.30 2.04 1.01 Dinorado (Acc. 96109)‐1 0.20 2.20 0.84 Dinorado (CEL)‐1 0.30 1.90 0.92 Azucena (IRTP 806)‐1 1.00 0.94 2.13 Azucena (IRTP 806)‐6 – 0.66 2.06 Azucena (IRTP 806)‐9 0.30 0.71 2.21 Azucena (IRTP 806)‐10 0.20 0.65 1.6 d. Improved seed production, management, and storage systems evaluated with participation of at least
10 men and women farmers at each key site. At the outset of the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project, seed scarcity was identified as a key constraint to food security in Arakan Valley. The genetic purity of Dinorado had declined after 30 years of its cultivation. Furthermore, farmers did not have access to improved upland varieties, which constrained their productivity levels. Scarcity of rice seed forced farmers to shift upland fields to maize, which they sold for cash to buy rice for household consumption. From 1994, upland rice area had declined sevenfold from 2,730 ha to 377 ha in 2002. Arakan Valley, the once‐proud home of aromatic Dinorado, had been converted to a “corn belt.” The year 2003 saw a dramatic increase in upland rice area to 2,969 ha, and such high levels were maintained during the project. What were the reasons for such an immediate turnaround? CURE joined forces with the MAO to organize a network of seed producers known as a community seed bank (CSB). This organization consists of farmers who agree to follow proper seed health management practices to produce a reliable supply of good‐quality seed. CURE trained these farmers on management of the standing crop, proper seed cleaning after harvest, and storage practices to maintain a healthy seed lot. Thus, the CSB is a technical and social process for sustaining the community’s supply of pure, good‐quality seed. It is technical from the standpoint that producers must follow standards in seed management, and it is social in the sense that it is a community of farmers who have a common objective. In fact, the farmers decided to organize what was intended to be an informal network into a formal institution in order to sustain its benefits regardless of outside support. On 11 Aug. 2006, the farmers inaugurated the Arakan Valley Community Seed Bank Organization (ACSBO). The formal structure (Fig. 4) is overseen by a 12‐member board of directors. The ACSBO officers are Nestor Nombreda Sr., president; Jessie Castor, vice president; Imelda Vilchez, secretary; Jogen
111
Pedroso, treasurer; and Enrico Aguirre, auditor. Committees are established for membership, breeding/registration, and policy support/advocacy. Fig. 4. Organization of the Arakan Valley Community Seed Bank Organization. By the year of the project extension (2007), the ACSBO represented 45 participant‐cooperator farms distributed over four barangays of Arakan Valley. Furthermore, the MAO is supervising 106 farmers who have adopted CSB methods in 14 barangays. Thus, 151 Arakan Valley farmers use seed health management practices through either the ACSBO or the MAO. The MAO has applied the seed bank model to the nearby Manobos indigenous community to resurrect a traditional seed banking system that had gone into disuse, and WG6‐Arakan Valley’s sister key site in Lampung, Indonesia, has adopted the Arakan seed bank model. These latter instances reflect the portability and adaptability of the seed bank model to other locales and cultures. Briefly, what follows are some of the activities of the CSB through the life of the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project at Arakan Valley: 2004
• Two‐day training workshop on upland rice seed production conducted in May, attended by 44 farmers and 20 extensionists.
• Seed health management workshop conducted in December, attended by 27 farmers. 2005
• CSB’s 44 members plant Dinorado, NSIC Rc9, NSIC Rc11, and UPL Ri‐5 for seed multiplication. Monitoring was conducted, although increased gasoline costs limited travel to outlying areas. In general, farmers who planted clean seeds observed greener and taller plants of uniform height.Yields ranged from 2.79 to 4.61 t ha–1, and total production was 25.08 tons of seed. In the postharvest phase, the majority of farmers had stored seeds at acceptable moisture content (12–14%).
Board of
Directors
Officers: President
Vice President Secretary Treasurer Auditor
Committee for
Membership
Committee for Breeding/Registration
Committee for Policy
Support/Advocacy
112
• Training on postharvest technologies and proper seed storage was conducted on 7 October, attended by 27 farmers; the top 25 producers were awarded plastic storage bins.
2006 • A technical briefing conducted on 1 March to discuss crop management, upland rice
farming, the seed industry, and other practices that could be used in this cropping season.
• CSB records 30 registered members; they plant Dinorado, IR72768‐8‐1‐1, UPL Ri‐5, NSIC Rc‐9; NSIC Rc‐11, IR7437‐54‐1‐1, and PR53 for seed multiplication. No weevil infestation was found in properly stored seeds; most seeds stored in plastic storage bins distributed in 2005 had good germination. A high yielder was NSIC Rc‐9 (2.57 t ha–1) and yields for other varieties went from a low of 1.41 t ha–1. Training was conducted on seed health management, and rice seed production was discussed in field training at the vegetative, reproductive, and ripening stages of the crop.
2007 • The 23 monitored CSB member‐cooperators planted the same entries as in 2006 in
addition to PR23709‐10, IR64, PR27777‐9‐B, and IR747371‐3‐1. Because of some seed storage problems for the seeds harvested in 2006, four new entries were rated to have very poor germination. IR72768‐8‐1‐1 “DR90” outyielded the other varieties with an average yield of 1.70 t ha–1. This was followed closely by PR23798‐1‐7‐2 and IR75502‐24‐1‐1‐B, both with an average yield of 1.60 t ha–1. The lowest yield data were obtained for NSIC RC‐9, with an average yield of only 0.684 t ha–1.
• A mini‐seed fair was conducted that featured good‐quality upland rice seed and vegetable products from the CSB seed production farms. As part of the farmers’ field day activity conducted on 11 September 2007, the CSB farmer participants submitted at least 1 kg of seed from their harvest to the USM team for evaluation on seed cleanliness and seed purity. Germination percentage of the upland rice entries ranged from 88% to 99% (Table 57) and moisture content ranged from 11.5% to 17.5%.
Table 57. Varieties submitted for seed quality evaluation, 2007 CS, Arakan, Cotabato.
Varieties/lines No. of entries (farmers) submitted
% germination
Azucena 1 98 Dinorado 19 92 (average) IR72768‐8‐1‐1 ʺDR90ʺ 1 94 Guyod 1 97 IR75502‐24‐1‐1 1 95 Malagkit 1 97 Negros Rice 1 99 PR23813‐2‐53 ʺPR53ʺ 1 95 UPL Ri‐5 6 88 (average)
9 Traditional and modern varieties
32
113
e. At least one variety combination with disease resistance or preferred grain quality and/or one species combination adopted by cooperating farmers in the study domain.
Mixed cropping for food security/livelihood enhancement WG6‐Arakan Valley sought to diversify resource‐poor farmers’ rice‐based system by introducing the mixed cropping of nonrice crops in the same field as rice. The combinations tested were rice + mungbean, rice + maize, and rice + peanut. The objective was to provide a buffer crop for food security should rice fail. Even if the rice crop is sufficient, this system offers other advantages. The leguminous crops, mungbean and peanut, are sources of protein than can enhance rural households’ nutrition, and the plants can fix nitrogen in the soil to improve fertility. Mungbean is harvested the month before rice, and can provide food during the “hungry” period of rice shortages. Furthermore, these crops can be sold to enhance rural households’ income. Prior to the project, Arakan Valley farmers had practiced mixed cropping to a certain extent as they grew maize in scattered fields on the landscape. The researchers provided a more systematic planting concept that establishes rice and a nonrice crop in side‐by‐side plots. The rice varieties sown were Dinorado and UPL Ri5. During the scaling‐up process during the project’s one‐year extension (2007), a total of 21 farmers had adopted this practice, choosing a nonrice crop that they felt was suitable for their operations. Of these, one farmer chose to sow all three crop combinations. Furthermore, CURE introduced various mixed‐cropping patterns using vegetables and root crops to 54 farmer‐cooperators participating in the Department of Agriculture’s Model Rice Farms program that covers Arakan Valley and other communities in North Cotabato and Davao provinces. The model farms serve as learning grounds to catalyze the adoption of new technologies among neighboring farmers. In 2006, the year prior to the scaling‐up, researchers found that farmers could narrow the yield gap, or even surpass yields of researcher‐managed plots (Table 58). Researchers considered the yield gaps for Dinorado (–0.15 t ha–1), for UPL Ri5 (–0.63 t ha–1), and for maize (–1.36 t ha–1) fairly reasonable given that farmers had limited access to new production technologies prior to this project. However, farmers’ plots outyielded researchers’ plots for mungbean (0.39 t ha–1) and peanut (0.16 t ha–1), which were also the largest percentage (and positive) differences, 38.2% and 44.4%, respectively, of all crops planted. The latter result is a good indicator that the research efforts were making an impact on end‐users of these technologies. Table 58. Yield gap, mixed cropping trials, Arakan Valley, 2006.
Yield (t ha–1) Crop Researchers 12 farmers
Yield gap from researchers
Dinorado 1.67 1.52 −0.15 (−8.9%) UPL Ri5 3.27 2.64 −0.63 (−19.2) Maize 5.18 3.82 −1.36 (−26.2) Mungbean 0.63 1.02 0.39 (38.2%) Peanut 0.36 0.52 0.16 (44.4%)
114
The 2006 research design allowed the 12 cooperating farmers to choose the mixed‐crop pattern that they felt best fit their farming operation. The majority, seven, grew the rice‐mungbean combination, while rice‐peanut and rice‐maize were each grown on four farms. The overwhelming choice of rice‐mungbean is not surprising as the 2005 season’s research showed that combination to be the most advantageous when considering the productivity of these cropping patterns by land equivalent ratio (LER). The LER compares the yields from growing two or more crops together with yields from growing the same crops in a monoculture. Essentially, the LER measures the effect of both beneficial and negative interactions between crops. An LER greater than 1.0 usually shows that intercropping is advantageous and less than 1.0 shows a disadvantage. In ranking order, the rice + mungbean combination was followed by rice + groundnut and then rice + maize (Table 59). Table 59. Productivity indices of mixed cropping setups, Arakan Valley, 2005.
Crop combination LER Advantages
1. Rice + mungbean 1.41
N fixation, reliable source of income, drought tolerant, human nutritional value, harvested in “hungry” monthright before rice harvest
2. Rice + peanut 1.02 Human nutritional value, cash crop
3. Rice + maize 0.96 Shorter duration than rice, cash crop
4. Pure rice (Dinorado + UPL Ri‐5) 0.94 Food value and cash crop Rice genetic diversification WG6‐Arakan introduced a concept of planting two different rice varieties in specified row ratios in the same field. The research showed that rice genetic diversification can reduce disease compared with a varietal pure stand (monoculture); however, improvements in yield were limited. The experimental setup involved two rows of Dinorado interplanted with four rows of the improved variety UPL Ri‐5 (Table 60). The latter variety has characteristics similar to Dinorado, but it is higher yielding. In the first‐year test, NSIC Rc‐9 was sown as the improved variety, but was replaced by UPL Ri‐5 for the remainder of the project. Despite advantages in controlling disease, the pure stands of Dinorado surpassed yield in the mixed plot by as much as two and one‐half times. Also, pure stands of the improved variety—whether NSIC Rc‐9 or UPL Ri‐5—had higher yield by 45–62% above the respective improved variety in a mixed stand.
115
Table 60. Yield averages of farmer‐managed and researcher‐managed rice diversification trials, Arakan Valley, two years.
2004 2005
Trial no. Rice varietal combination Yield
(t ha–1)
Difference from mixed stand (t ha–1)
Yield (t ha–1)
Difference from mixed stand (t ha–1)
1. Pure Dinorado 1.35 0.97 (255%) 1.54 0.96 (165%) 2. Pure NSIC Rc‐9 2.49 0.78 (45%) 2.48 0.95 (62%)
NSIC Rc‐9 (4 rows) + Dinorado (2 rows)
1.71 0.38
– NT –
3. UPL Ri‐5 (4 rows) + Dinorado (2 rows)
N T NT 1.53 0.58
–
NT=not tested In 2006, rice genetic diversification, using the Dinorado‐UPL Ri‐5 combination, was scaled out to 17 farmers in seven villages of Arakan Valley. Farmers’ yields for either variety were about one‐third less than the researcher‐managed plot yields. Farmer‐managned Dinorado yielded 0.40 t ha–1 less and UPL‐Ri‐5 yielded 0.93 t ha–1 less than these varieties grown in researcher‐managed plots (Fig. 6). In 2007, only two farmers were willing to try the rice genetic diversification practice. In a focus group discussion that year, farmers said the 2:4 row ratio was confusing for field workers at planting time, and it was difficult to keep the seed of the different varieties separate at harvest. Some had adapted the practice, however, by planting each variety as a plot beside each other in the same field, rather than in rows. Fig. 6. Average yields in farmer‐ and researcher‐managed rice genetic diversification scaling‐up, Arakan Valley, 2006.
f. At least 50% of cooperating farmers adopt one or more components of improved technology. One hundred percent of the farmer‐partners adopted at least one introduced technology, but most made some modifications in adapting it to their farms. Introduced technologies that are most popular with upland farmers are (1) mixed cropping, (2) planting of two or more upland rice varieties, (3) the use of quality seeds (good seeds), (4) roguing the seed production plots, and (5) proper seed storage.
s s
3.0
2.0
1.0
116
Output 2 Knowledge distilled into decision tools, management principles, and operational guidelines that are extension‐ready; extrapolation domains of improved production systems identified. Community seed bank distills knowledge into farmer‐ready practices The community seed bank is a vehicle for instilling management principles and operational guidelines for improved seed health management into Arakan Valley’s rural communities. Although membership in the CSB has ranged up to as many as 45 farmers, CURE has identified and monitors 23 farmer‐members whose practices meet acceptable standards for seed health management. These farmers are located in barangays Anapolon, Datu Mantangkil, Doroluman, Kabalantian, Malibatuan, Meocan, and Poblacion. The principles of good seed health management are emphasized through
• A preplanting briefing meeting at the start of the cropping season to refresh farmers on the management practices taught in formal training;
• Farm walks to allow farmers to assess the performance of cultivars across CSB farms; • Farmers’ classes at the early vegetative and reproductive stages, so farmers could assess
their crop stand and observe the biotic stresses affecting rice; • Annual farmers’ field days and seed fairs to draw participants from far‐flung
municipalities, and where CSB farmers display their products; and • Monitoring the quality of stored seeds by CSB farmers.
Second, the CSB itself is a model that experience has shown to be quite portable for instilling seed health management principles to communities outside of the CURE network in Arakan Valley. The MAO demonstrated the CSB’s portability by successfully establishing seed banks with 25 farmer‐members in barangays Badiangon, Poblacion, Doroluman, Salasang, Lower Binoongan, Datu Mantangkil, Kulaman Valley, Sto. Niño, and Malibatuan of Arakan Valley. The MAO also demonstrated the seed bank model’s adaptability to ethnic communities, whose traditional seed banking systems had become forgotten over time. The MAO was able to resurrect the seed banking system among about 20 rural households of the indigenous Manobos community in Kulaman Valley and Sumalili barangays. Furthermore, the seed bank model can be applied internationally, as the WG6 sister site in Lampung, Indonesia, has established a seed bank. Farmers’ field school model promotes crop diversification WG6‐Arakan Valley decided that a farmers’ field school (FFS) approach would be the best way to disseminate management principles of the new mixed cropping practices to farmers in Arakan Valley. This is the same method that CURE WG2‐Rangpur used in developing technologies for the submergence‐prone lowlands of northwestern Bangladesh. Although prepackaged technologies may have a place in the dissemination of agricultural technologies, the researchers had observed that Arakan Valley farmers tend to modify new agricultural practices to suit the growing requirements of their operations. The FFS approach is a process of
117
decision making that considers farmers’ fields to be the primary learning ground for teaching these new practices. In the words of the researchers, “The field is the best teacher,” through which farmers improve their knowledge, develop skills at using new practices, and adapt them for their own needs. In 2006, 17 farmer‐learners participated in the FFS conducted at every cropping stage to emphasize plant requirements for the various sequences of the growing season, including needs for fertilization, weed control, pest management, and overcoming rodent problems. Furthermore, farmers were taught research skills to collect data and keep records that were useful for filling in gaps in researchers’ notes. Finally, the FFS fields were also sites for building the communities’ capacity for mixed cropping, as the participants hosted farm walks and farmer‐to‐farmer visits during which farmers explained new practices to their neighbors. Researchers were also available to give technical advice. As the adage goes, “Experience is the best teacher,” and FFS participants learned new methods by trying them out on their own farm, while their neighbors also benefited by learning from the participating farmers’ experiences. Although the FFS is useful in disseminating technologies to the local level, a broader effort was employed to spread mixed cropping practices and new rice seeds through national government programs and NGOs, some of which sought to rebuild the agricultural productive capacity of refugee populations escaping socially and politically stressed areas of Mindanao. WG6‐Arakan Valley actively collaborates with like‐minded agricultural outreach programs to reach the greatest number of farmers as possible who could benefit from the new technologies. One such collaboration is with the Department of Agriculture (DA)–Philippine Rice Research Institute’s (PhilRice) Palayamanan program (Model Rice Farms), through which management principles and operational guidelines on crop diversification practices are disseminated. WG6‐Arakan scaled up intercropping practices to two model farms established in the rainfed uplands and to 14 model farms established in the lowlands. Another collaboration is with the University of Southern Mindanao‐DA’s Pagkain Para sa Masa (Food for the Masses) and the International Committee of the Red Cross’s “Arms to Farms” programs. WG6‐Arakan Valley provided free technical assistance and start‐up materials (rice and nonrice seeds) to 7,803 farmers in 2006 and to 6,686 farmers from all over Mindanao in 2007. By obtaining start‐up seeds, the farmer beneficiaries were encouraged to implement crop diversification on their own farms. Finally, WG6‐Arakan Valley actively collaborates with two NGOs, the Kinayahan Foundation and Minland Foundation, by providing seeds, materials, and technical assistance for their rehabilitation programs for formerly war‐torn areas. Presenting research results in various fora/formats To keep non‐CURE agricultural specialists abreast of the achievements resulting from farmer participatory research in Arakan Valley, the researchers gave presentations or presented posters at the following professional meetings during the life of the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project:
• Federation of Crop Science Society in the Philippines (posters), Davao City (May 2004) and Tagatay City (June 2007);
118
• Administrative Council, University of Southern Mindanao, 6‐8 Feb. 2006 and 17‐19 Jan. 2008;
• 19th National Research & Development Conference, Philippines Rice Research Institute, Nueva Ecija, Philippines, 19 June 2006;
• Research and development in‐house review, University of Southern Mindanao, 19 June 2006;
• Cotabato Agricultural Resource and Research Development Consortium (CARRDEC) Regional Techno Fora, University Laboratory Schools‐University of Southern Mindanao, 23 Aug. 2006;
• International Rice Congress (poster), New Delhi, India, October 2006; and • 4th International Rice Blast Conference (presentation and posters), Vaya Hotel,
Changsha, China, 9‐14 Oct. 2007.
The Working Group also used Web‐based resources to promote the operational guidelines developed by this project. These materials were posted on the University of Southern Mindanao Web site, www.usm.edu.ph. Output 3 Capacity of NARES strengthened for implementing integrative and participatory technology development and dissemination. The ADB‐RETA 6136 support allowed WG6‐Arakan Valley’s already‐strong farmer participatory research program to further the development of technologies useful for this ecosystem. Evidences of the Working Group’s success are in the quantitative and qualitative reports that document that upland rice area has expanded and that farmers have alleviated the seed scarcity that inhibited rice production. To broaden the scope of the team’s leadership, the key site coordinator and extension coordinator attended a farmer participatory workshop at the project outset after the 2004 CURE Steering Committee meeting in Thailand. Further cross‐site activities in 2006 in Lampung, Indonesia, and in Rangpur, Bangladesh, allowed the team’s leadership to become familiar with farmer participatory methods in an international context, allowing the cross‐fertilization of ideas between WG6‐Arakan Valley and other sites. Furthermore, the project supported training in a workshop at IRRI HQs so field staff could enhance their expertise in farmer participatory methods. A summary of training activities to build the Working Group’s research capacity follows in Table 61. Table 61. NARES capacity‐building activities, CURE WG6‐Arakan Valley, Philippines. Training course/activity WG6‐Arakan Valley participants Innovative Research Methods and Strategies for Conducting Research in Rainfed Environments Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand 4 June 2004
Dr. Edwin Hondrade, key site coordinator; Dr. Rose Fe Hondrade, extension coordinator, Dr. Casiana Vera Cruz, Working Group leader
Leadership Course for Asian Women in Agricultural Research & Development
Ms. Jean J. Somera
119
IRRI HQ, Los Baños, Philippines 7‐18 Nov. 2005 Participatory Approaches for Agricultural Research & Extension IRRI HQ, Los Baños, Philippines 21 Nov.‐2 Dec. 2005
Ms. Lorelyn Joy Turnos
Cross‐site visit and review and planning meeting with WG6‐Lampung Central Lampung District, Sumatra, and Bogor, Indonesia 13‐17 Feb. 2006
Dr. Edwin Honrade, key site coordinator; Dr. Rose Fe Hondrade, extension coordinator.
Showcase of diverse rice‐growing environments and boro rice in Bangladesh Rural Development Academy, Bogor, and BRRI Regional Station, Rangpur 10‐11 March 2006
Dr. Leocadio Sebastian; Dr. Edwin Hondrade; Dr. Rose Fe Hondrade
Participatory Approaches for Agricultural Research & Extension IRRI HQ, Los Baños, Philippines 7‐18 Aug. 2006
Ms. Jean J. Somera: Mr. Jack Alberto Sindao Herrera
Output 4 Farmer acceptability and viability of innovative production systems assessed; policymakers and development authorities sensitized on supporting sector needs for wider adoption. Assessing farmer acceptability through impact Farmer acceptability of innovative production systems became apparent at the outset of the project when the MAO immediately reported that area planted to upland rice had increased five to seven times above a low mark of 377 ha reported in 2002 (Table 62). CURE’s collaboration with the MAO brought about immediate and significant results the year before the project began (2003). However, the ADB‐RETA 6136 support allowed the Working Group to establish a community seed bank to sustain these results over a longer term. Thus, the outcomes of this project will continue to be realized years after project termination as the CSB will be a community vehicle to maintain the technologies. WG6‐Arakan Valley also documented farmer acceptability of the technologies through seed exchanges from farmer‐cooperators to other rural cultivators residing both in and beyond the area of the CURE operations. The benchmark survey conducted in 2004 identified seed scarcity as a constraint to improved crop productivity. However, throughout the project, farmers reported they had enough seed to share with relatives, neighbors, and friends, usually as a gift. The amounts of seed exchanged and year in parentheses were 807 kg (2004), 1,005 kg (2005), and 1,119 kg (2006).
120
Table 62. Rice planting area, Arakan, North Cotabato Province, Philippines Area (ha)
Year Lowland (irr. & rainfed) Upland
1994 731.0 2,753.0 1995 680.0 2,000.0 1996 803.5 398.2 1997 1,041.0 1,590.0 1998 1,452.0 550.0 1999 694.0 950.0 2000 603.0 1,050.0 2001 1,094.2 539.0 2002 1,035.0 377.0 2003 676.5 2,969.0 2004 500.0 2,218.0 2005 600.0 2,958.0 2006 640.5 2,960.0 Source: Municipal Agricultural Office, Arakan, as quoted in Villanueva (2004:20). Farmer acceptability of the technologies was also mentioned in farmers’ comments during a qualitative impact assessment conducted 26‐28 June 2007 at Arakan Valley. Farmers reported that rice yields had doubled and hungry months were reduced to just 2 months when they were previously 6 to 8 months. The improved food security was due to the alleviation of seed scarcity and also due to the introduction of improved rice varieties that are better‐yielding than traditional cultivars. However, farmers will continue to grow the lower‐yielding traditional variety Dinorado as it is aromatic and fetches attractive prices in the market. Not only were farmers able to recite the principles of proper seed health management, they were also able to relate those principles to actual crop performance, field conditions, and seed characteristics. Thus, they are able to relate abstract ideas to their actual situation, which enhances the sustainability of these practices. Farmers also gave favorable responses to the mixed cropping practices as a buffer against food shortages in years of a poor rice crop, and to provide food during the seasonal rice shortages right before harvest. Although farmers recognize the benefits of rice genetic diversification, the research design is difficult to implement on their farms. Some have adapted the researcher‐suggested row ratios by planting parcels of different rice varieties in the same field instead. The assessment report attributed the WG6 team’s success to a combination of technical expertise and use of social science methodologies, which contributed to a skillful application of farmer participatory methods and built rapport with resource‐poor farmers. Integrating local government into CURE activities WG6‐Arakan Valley has made the local MAO and national government and nongovernmental organizations full partners in research and development, and technology demonstration and scaling‐out activities. Therefore, the Working Group’s relationships have extended beyond
121
merely sensitizing “policymakers and development authorities…on supporting sector needs for wider adoption,” as required by Output 4. Instead, the Working Group has taken a more proactive role in shaping the supporting sector by actively participating in it. The relationship with the MAO is particularly instructive, as it has been instrumental for disseminating seeds throughout Arakan Valley even before the start of the ADB‐RETA 1636 Project, which resulted in considerable results as indicated by the increase in upland rice area (Table 62). Furthermore, the MAO has been able to take CURE technologies to nonparticipating communities to improve their seed health management system. In other instances, CURE has been able to earn the Local Government Unit’s (LGU) support for improving infrastructure that could allow farmers to benefit from their adoption of CURE technologies. These projects included the building of a concrete bridge and improved road network to reduce marketing costs of farmers in Barangay Manubuan. In another case, the LGU improved the road network to a farmer‐cooperator’s property that is an important site for technology demonstrations. WG6‐Arakan Valley is also an important player in national government programs such as Pagkain Para sa Masa (Food for the Masses) and the International Committee of the Red Cross’s “Arms to Farms” program that had reached 14,489 rural households by the end of 2007. WG6‐Arakan Valley is also a conduit for the national varietal testing and release program, the National Cooperative Test (NCT). In fact, the Working Group reorganized its researcher‐managed “mother trials” in 2007 to provide a separate output for the NCT. This relationship assures the nation’s plant breeders that new lines/varieties are not only tested in the upland environment of Arakan Valley, but that farmer‐elicited evaluations are part of the mix in the breeding process. In this way, resource‐poor farmers have a direct voice in the nation’s rice breeding programs. F.2. Working Group 6 for intensive upland systems with a long growing season Indonesian Center for Food Crops Research and Development (ICFORD) Lampung, Indonesia Output 1.1 Baseline information on farmer households, cropping practices, constraints, existing data sets, technologies, and recommendations made available. The Lampung site in southern Sumatra, Indonesia, falls within the rice blast endemic area where highly diverse strains of the pathogen rapidly break down the resistance of rice introduced to the area. Rice yields average 1.6 t ha–1 in an area where the biophysical conditions could favor yields as high as 4.0 t ha–1 compared with the national average of 2.0 t ha–1. For the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project, follow‐up focus group discussions were conducted in eight villages of Central Lampung District in 2004 to fill in gaps of a participatory rural appraisal done in 2003. This allowed the team to get a more complete assessment of the farming system and practices, and productivity problems as perceived by the rural households. Combining both studies, the picture emerged that farmers prefer the tall traditional variety Lampung Arak,
122
which is low yielding but resistant to blast. Furthermore, farmers prefer the eating quality of traditional varieties, which is an incentive for them to grow these cultivars. Farmers were willing to use higher‐yielding varieties, but past experience showed that improved varieties performed poorly due to susceptibility to blast. Thus, lack of access to blast‐resistant improved varieties that meet farmers’ preference criteria was a constraint to better rice productivity. They also desired varieties tolerant of soil potassium deficiency, which is common in Lampung soils. Another constraint is lack of access to pure, good‐quality seeds. In Lampung, farmers have inadequate seed storage systems and traditionally secure seeds through an informal farmer‐to‐farmer exchange system, which often results in poor seed quality. Farmers also raised concern about the continuing decline in upland rice area and labor shortage that prevented them from planting synchronously, a strategy that usually reduces pest injuries to rice. The farmers also indicated the need for more effective weed and soil nutrient management strategies. Cassava is the main crop grown year‐round as it is easy to manage due to low labor and water requirements, and it can be harvested anytime when cash is needed. Rice is mixed with cassava as a staple food, and there is no motivation to increase rice yield for a marketable surplus. However, continuous cultivation of cassava, which removes a large amount of nutrients from the soil, contributes to poor soil fertility, which also affects rice yields. The survey identified several points for intervention where technologies could be introduced, and recommendations for research were
• Improved seed health practices to improve farmers’ access to better seed quality; • Access to higher‐yielding varieties with blast resistance through participatory
varietal selection; and • Improved management practices to control blast through rice genetic diversification
(growing two varieties with differential blast resistance in the same field).
Output 1.2 Cropping systems options using disease‐resistant varieties developed and validated with farmers, for increasing crop diversity for reduced risk, improving productivity, and conserving traditional varieties through active use. Detailed outputs a. At least 50 farming households at each key site actively engaging in testing and validating
technologies with researchers, extension personnel, and NGOs. Seed package development for blast management As Central Lampung District is an endemic blast area, WG6‐Lampung is developing a package of 20–30 lines/varieties with broad‐spectrum disease resistance. Once this package is ready for distribution, its wide genetic diversity to blast resistance is expected to alleviate farmers’ need to frequently change seeds in response to blast population shifts. Such a package
123
would be very useful for raising productivity in this blast‐prone region where rice averages 1.6 t ha–1 in an otherwise favorable environment capable of yields as high as 4.0 t ha–1. The preliminary work for developing this package occurred in 2006 in the evaluation of 500 advanced breeding lines at the Muara Experiment Station of the Indonesian Institute of Rice Research (IIRR), Bogor. Scientists screened this pool of lines for resistance against 25 diverse blast pathogen races. The evaluations also characterized these materials for pest resistance, agronomic traits, and grain quality. During the 2006‐07 cropping year, 93 farmers of six villages sowed seed from 22 candidate lines (Table 63) for the purpose of testing and validating these materials for the proposed package.10 Yields ranged from 3.10 to 5.10 t ha–1, which was about 50–200% above this region’s average rice yield (1.6 t ha–1). Farmers sowed a total of 1,689 kg of seeds in Purbolinggo, Sukadana, Seputih Raman, Rumbiya, and Metro Raya villages. Table 63. On‐farm yields of proposed lines/varieties in a seed package for blast management, 93 farmers, three districts, Lampung Province, wet season 2006‐07.a
Lines & varieties
Average yield (t ha–1)
Lines & varieties
Average yield(t ha–1)
B11577‐MR‐B‐12‐1 4.23 IR60080‐23 3.78 B11598C‐TB‐14‐3 3.30 IR65907‐116‐1‐13‐MR‐4 3.78 B11602E‐MR‐1‐3 3.95 TB393B‐17‐1 4.61 B9071F‐TB‐1 4.02 TB437B‐TB‐1 3.84 Bio511B‐5‐12‐5‐1 3.10 TB47H‐MR‐10 3.65 Bio511B‐61‐2‐3‐1 3.59 TB490C‐TB‐1‐2‐1 4.85 Bio528‐5‐12‐5‐1 3.48 TB364B‐12‐2 4.75 Bio530B‐MR‐9‐6 3.36 TB361B‐TB‐30‐6‐2 5.08 BP1351D‐2‐PK‐3‐1 4.87 TB356B‐TB‐18‐3 3.53 BP1976B‐2‐3‐7‐TB‐1‐1 3.94 Batutegi 4.42 BP1978‐24‐5‐TB‐13 4.55 Situ Patenggang 4.38 a Data from two other districts unavailable at the time of this writing. For the 2007‐08 cropping year, seed for 29 advanced lines (Table 64) was increased at Taman Bogo Experiment Station for deployment to 89 farmers in four villages to validate this package under their own management. CURE distributed 1,514.5 kg of seed randomly and free‐of‐charge to farmers in Sukadana, Pekalongan, Metro, and Seputih Raman villages (Table 64). Breeding lines B9071F‐TB‐1, Bio511B‐5‐12‐5‐1, IR65907‐116‐1‐13‐MR‐4, and TB393B‐17‐1, which have been adopted by farmers, were not multiplied, but their cultivation will be monitored. Local governments provided credit to farmers to purchase fertilizers and other inputs. In addition, the national varietal test and release program will include these lines in 2007‐08 trials in Central Java, West Java and South Sumatra. It is expected that the validation and deployment
10 Indonesia is in the southern hemisphere, and the growing season occurs from November through March when it is the dry season for all other CURE sites north of the equator.
124
of this seed package will occur after the life of the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project, as the 2007‐08 on‐farm evaluations were ongoing after project termination on 31 Dec. 2007. Table 64. List of advanced lines in a seed package for blast management distributed to 89 farmers, four villages, Lampung Province, wet season 2007‐08. B10553E‐KN‐68‐1‐1 B11598C‐TB‐2‐1‐B‐7 TB356B‐TB‐18‐3 a B10580‐KN‐28‐1‐1 B11602E‐MR‐1‐2 TB361B‐30‐6‐2 a B11338F‐TB‐26 B11602E‐MR‐1‐3 a TB368B‐TB‐25‐MR‐2 B11577C‐MR‐B‐12‐1 a B11602E‐TB‐2‐4‐3 TB409B‐TB‐14‐3 B11577E‐MR‐B‐12‐1‐1 B11604E‐TB‐2‐3 TB490C‐TB‐1‐2‐1 a B11577E‐MR‐B‐13‐1‐1‐5‐5 B11604E‐TB‐2‐5 TB490C‐TB‐1‐2‐1‐MR‐1‐1 B11577E‐MR‐B‐13‐4 BP1351D‐2‐PK‐3‐1 a TB490C‐TB‐1‐2‐1‐MR‐4‐29 B11578F‐MR‐5‐1 BP1976B‐2‐3‐7‐TB‐1‐1 a TB203C‐CKY‐13‐1 B11587F‐4‐2 IR30176‐B‐1‐2‐MR‐2 B11593F‐MR‐11‐B‐2‐8 IR60080‐23 a
BP702C‐Si‐5‐1‐12
a High‐yielding lines included in the 2006‐07 cropping year. b. At least 115 farmers validating introduced technologies (100 for PVS, 10 for rice diversification, and
five for crop diversification). The PVS trials have involved from about 90 to more than 100 farmers in either the regular trials to identify lines/varieties for this blast‐prone environment or in the development of a package of seeds with broad‐spectrum blast resistance. Specifically, 93 farmers tested materials for the broad‐spectrum seed package in the 2006‐07 wet season (section “a” above), 106 farmers were involved in the regular PVS in the 2005‐06 wet season (section “c” below), and 89 farmers were involved in the PVS in 2007‐08 (section “c”). For rice genetic diversification, an experiment involving four farmers in cropping years 2003‐04 and 2004‐05 tested the effectiveness of interplanting one row of a susceptible modern variety (Cirata or Way Rarem) with four rows of Limboto, another modern variety that is moderately resistant to blast. In the next two seasons, the experiments tested interplanting practices in four farmers’ fields with a traditional variety, Sirendah, which has good blast resistance, with Cirata and Way Rarem. Details of these tests are discussed in section “e” below. The WG‐Lampung key site was not involved in diversification involving nonrice crops; this activity was conducted at the sister site in Arakan Valley, Philippines. c. At least 15 improved varieties, advanced breeding lines, and farmer‐preferred traditional varieties
evaluated in farmers’ fields by cooperating farmers at both key sites with participation of extension personnel.
125
Participatory varietal selection to identify blast‐resistant lines For the 2004‐05 PVS trials, a total of 14 advanced lines/improved varieties were evaluated in researcher‐managed “mother” trials at Taman Bogo Experiment Station and in farmers’ fields in two subdistricts of Central Lampung Province. Average yields for the high‐performing entries at both sites were Bio528B‐TB‐12‐1‐1 (4.79 t ha–1), TB393B‐TB‐17‐1 (4.72 t ha–1), and B9071F‐B‐7 (4.64 t ha–1) compared with the traditional variety Sirendah (3.33 t ha‐1) and an improved Sirendah (4.41 t ha‐1). At a field day on 28 March 2005, 45 farmers ranked these varieties in this order of preference: TB393B‐TB‐17‐1, Bio530B‐5‐6‐5‐4, Bio511B‐61‐2‐3‐1, and Bio530A‐4‐14‐2‐2‐8. For the 2005‐06 PVS, a similar set of advanced lines/varieties was sown in “mother” trials at Taman Bogo Experiment Station, and a total of 1,836 kg of seed was sown by 106 farmers for “baby” trials in Taman Bogo, Sukadana Ilir, Rukti Basuki, Rama Nirwana, Rama Murti, and Kali Bening villages. The entries included such farmer‐preferred lines/varieties and high yielders such as TB47H‐MR‐10, Limboto (improved), Bio528B‐12‐1‐1, TB393B‐TB‐17‐1, B9071F‐TB‐7, and Bio530B‐39‐3‐6. In addition, 784 kg of seed was distributed beyond the CURE sites to villages recommended by local government units: Way Bungur, Batang Hari Nuban, Way Jepara, and Raman Utara. The local officials were impressed with the new varieties at the 2005 field day and had requested that farmers from their districts receive seeds. The 2006‐07 PVS tested 13 promising upland lines/varieties in researcher‐managed “mother” trials sown at the Taman Bogo Experiment Station, in preparation for 2007‐08 on‐farm PVS trials. The high‐yielder Bio511B‐61‐2‐3‐1 (3.55 t ha–1) had performed well in previous trials and had already been grown by some farmers. The other high yielders, in respective order, were Bio528B‐TB‐12‐1‐1 (3.43 t ha–1), TB437B‐TB‐1 (3.24 t ha–1), B11598C‐TB‐2‐1‐B‐7 (3.21 t ha–1), and TB409B‐TB‐14‐3 (3.11 t ha–1). These were promoted to another year of testing in farmer‐managed “baby” trials (Table 65). In addition, these entries were selected for multilocational evaluations in the national varietal testing and release program: Bio511B‐61‐2‐3‐1, along with B9071F‐TB‐7 (2.87 t ha–1) and B1351‐D‐2‐PK‐3‐1 (2.86 t ha–1). The 2007‐08 PVS tested 29 promising upland lines/varieties in researcher‐managed “mother” trials sown at Taman Bogo Experiment Station and by 89 farmers for baby trials in four villages. Table 65. Area, number of farmers, and number of lines in villages selected for the baby trial in Lampung province for cropping year 2007‐08.
Village Area No. of farmers
No. of lines/varieties
Sukadana 10.5 21 32 Pekalongan 8 19 32 Metro 14 41 32 Seputih Raman 5 8 10 Total 37.5 89 106
126
In addition to the PVS trials conducted throughout the life of the project, the 29 candidate lines/varieties for the broad‐spectrum blast‐resistant seed package were tested in farmers’ fields as discussed in section “a” of this output above. Furthermore, 17 of the advanced lines will be included in 2007‐08 national multilocational varietal testing to evaluate their suitability for a wider range of environments, the procedure for evaluating varieties for release (Table 66). Table 66. List of advanced lines/varieties included in the DSD national multilocational test in 2007‐08. Bio528B‐TB‐12‐1‐1 B11577E‐MR‐B‐13‐1‐1‐5‐5 Bio511B‐61‐2‐3‐1 B11338F‐TB‐26 B11577F‐MR‐12‐1 B10580E‐KN‐28‐1‐1 TB409B‐TB‐14‐3 TB490C‐TB‐1‐21‐MR‐1‐1 TB490C‐TB‐1‐2‐1 B11580‐MR‐7‐1‐1 TB490C‐TB‐1‐2‐1‐4‐29 IR30176‐B‐2‐R‐1 B11602E‐MR‐1‐2 BP1976B‐2‐3‐7‐TB‐1‐1 B11602E‐MR‐2‐3 Limboto (check variety) BP702C‐Si‐5‐1‐12 Batutegi (check variety) BP1351D‐1‐2‐PK‐3‐1 Situ Patenggang (check variety) d. Improved seed production, management, and storage systems evaluated with participation of at least
10 men and women farmers at each key site. Seed health training for improved seed health and purity A November 2005 survey of 50 farmers in five villages determined that farmers’ seed management practices could be improved in order to raise productivity of the rice crop. Specifically, farmers planted varietal seed mixtures, which resulted in impure seed lots, and their storage practices used sacks that resulted in poor‐quality seed health. Most farmers’ stored seeds were discolored and contained crop debris, unfilled grains, and insect infestation. The survey results supported CURE’s launching of seed health management training to educate farmers about practices that maintain seed purity, health, and quality, which studies have shown can improve rice productivity by about 10%. In all cases, the training involved more than 10 men and women farmers in five villages over two years. WG6‐Lampung’s program involved training, monitoring of farmers’ use of these practices, and the establishment of a community seed bank or a network of seed producers who agree to follow proper seed management practices. WG6‐Lampung adopted the CSB model from its successful implementation at its sister site in Arakan Valley, Philippines. Briefly, these activities were
• Classroom training of 25 farmers and five extensionists on 15 Oct. 2005 at Taman Bogo Experiment Station on proper seed health management practices.
• An IRRI seed health consultant conducted a seed health practicum in January 2006 involving 36 farmers in Sukadana Hilir, Taman Bogo, Kalibening‐Pekalongan, and Rama
127
Murti/Nirwana villages. Farmers practiced roguing in their fields for rice at the panicle initiation‐to‐boot stage.
• A follow‐up visit by the seed health consultant right before harvest in February 2006 to monitor farmers in the final seasonal roguing of the crop. The consultant advised farmers to purchase locally available plastic bags for seed storage as plastic drums and metal cans with airtight covers were not available in the market.
• After the seed health consultant’s visit, IIRR seed specialist Dr. Sri Wahyuni continued working with Lampung’s CSB and monitored farmers’ implementation of proper seed health management practices.
• A follow‐up inspection of farmers’ stored seeds occurred on 28 Nov.‐1 Dec. 2006. Subsequent laboratory tests showed that only about half the samples of seeds that had been stored in the IRRI “super bag” had high viability and vigor. The results indicated that farmers needed to handle seeds better from field management to processing and storage. The researchers also noted that some farmers had exchanged the original seed lots for other varieties/lines from other farmers.
• In the 2006‐07 wet season, 15 farmers in five villages conducted field experiments by establishing a plot sown with their own seed and a comparative plot sown in good‐quality seed provided by researchers. Data were collected throughout the season on plant growth, pest incidence, and crop yields. There were no significant differences in plant growth, pest incidence, and grain yield between plots using farmers’ seeds and seeds provided by Taman Bogo Station (good seed). The varieties’/lines’ characteristics most obviously influenced grain yield.
• Training of trainers (TOT) for proper seed health practices involved 62 farmers in five villages on 6‐8 Jan. 2007. The TOT provided either initial or refresher training to farmers so they could teach these practices to other farmers in their five villages.
• A follow‐up TOT visit occurred in the five villages in March 2007, in which the 49 trained farmers instructed co‐villagers on proper seed management practices, such as roguing and identifying crops that had been properly managed. The plots had few mixtures, indicating that farmers had applied their training, and the fields had few weeds, which made for easier roguing. It was expected that farmers would be able to produce more seeds beyond their household need.
e. At least one variety combination with disease resistance or preferred grain quality and/or one species
combination adopted by cooperating farmers in the study domain. Rice genetic diversification to reduce blast An experiment with two trials in the 2005‐06 and 2006‐07 cropping seasons was conducted in farmers’ fields to test the effectiveness of interplanting two to six rows of a modern variety that is susceptible to blast with one row of a moderately resistant traditional variety. The ratios set forth in the on‐farm experiments in four farmers’ fields for the 2005‐06 and 2006‐07 cropping seasons were
1. Pure stand of Cirata (C) or Way Rarem (WR)
128
2. Two rows of C or WR to one row of Sirendah (S) 3. Four rows of C or WR to one row of S 4. Six rows of C or WR to one row of S 5. Pure stand of Sirendah
Sirendah, a traditional variety, was included in this experiment to determine the probability by which the row interplanting system can help the in situ conservation of traditional varieties. With the increasing preference for modern varieties, traditional varieties face the risk of extinction in the uplands of Lampung. Row interplanting did not reduce neck blast incidence on Cirata, the highly susceptible variety, in both trials. On the other hand, a reduction in neck blast on Way Rarem, the moderately susceptible variety, varied according to the level of disease pressure. When disease pressure was higher (neck blast incidence in the pure stand of Way Rarem was 30.4%), neck blast incidence on Way Rarem decreased as its proportion in the mixed stand decreased. When disease pressure was lower (neck blast incidence in monoculture of the moderately susceptible variety was 2.7%), neck blast incidence on Way Rarem did not significantly differ between pure and mixed stands. Although inconsistent, these results in fact show that the effectiveness of this interplanting system is more apparent at higher disease pressure. These results also confirm that increasing the level of resistance of components can improve the effectiveness of the row interplanting system. In the preproject cropping season, 2003‐04, and in the first year of the project, the 2004‐05 cropping season, experiments in four farmers’ fields tested the effectiveness of interplanting four rows of Limboto, a modern variety with moderate blast resistance, to one row of either Cirata or Way Rarem. This experiment showed that neck blast incidence on Cirata, the highly susceptible variety, was reduced only in the 2003‐04 season, whereas neck blast incidence on Way Rarem, the moderately susceptible variety, decreased by 29% in 2003‐04 and by 77% in 2004‐05. The row interplanting system has not yet been scaled out. In a focus group interview, farmers in Lampung stated that they prefer to interplant two modern varieties with the same plant height, duration, and grain quality. Mixing in the same field two modern varieties, as conducted in the first experiments in 2003‐04 and 2004‐05, appears to be the system that most likely caters to farmers’ preference in this area. Future research is necessary to develop a more effective interplanting system. One suggestion is to use seed mixtures of modern varieties with Pi‐1 and Pi‐2 genes, known for high amounts of resistance to the pathogen population in this area. Avoiding the application of a high amount of nitrogen fertilizer at the vegetative stage, and increasing potassium levels, might also improve resistance to blast. In other crops, the efficacy of varietal diversification increased when combined with other disease management approaches.
129
f. At least 50% of cooperating farmers adopt one or more components of improved technology. At this point, the technologies are still in development and have not been scaled out to any extent. Therefore, it would be premature to estimate the percentage of farmers who would adopt these technologies. The seed package of approximately 20 varieties with broad‐spectrum blast resistance is expected to be finalized in this current cropping season (2007‐08), for scaling out beyond the life of this project. Still, a substantial number of farmers—more than 180 over two years of tests—are involved in developing this package. The rice gene diversification practices still need to be fine‐tuned to ascertain their effective parameters, although the results have given further direction on how to proceed in developing this technology. Finally, the community seed bank is a work‐in‐progress, but the most recent work in the 2006‐07 cropping season indicated that farmers were using the practices, although continued monitoring and follow‐up training will be needed. Output 2 Knowledge distilled into decision tools, management principles, and operational guidelines that are extension‐ready; extrapolation domains of improved production systems identified. Extrapolating domains for technology dissemination The extrapolation domain for improved production systems in Lampung Province was well defined at the project outset as it is an endemic blast area that constrains rice yields to just 1.6 t ha–1 in the environment, which could otherwise be 2.5 times higher. Both the Lampung and Arakan Valley key sites planned to train four to six team members each in GIS techniques to further compile socioeconomic and agroecological data to identify villages with a high demand for technologies developed for this ecosystem. However, the lack of training personnel and a suitable course at IRRI has postponed the completion of this output. Nevertheless, WG6‐Lampung continued to evaluate rice lines/varieties for purposes of developing a package of upland varieties with broad‐spectrum blast resistance so farmers would not have to change varieties in response to the frequent shifts in blast populations. This process required on‐station screenings of 500 candidate lines/varieties, which narrowed the field to about 20 materials (see section “a,” Output 1.2). Researchers obtained valuable information from growers in on‐farm evaluations in the 2005‐06 and 2006‐07 growing seasons, which will be useful in finalizing the entries suitable for this package, expected in 2008. For the current season (2007‐08), the team chose an interactive participatory approach that will facilitate the monitoring of farmer acceptability of these new lines. The team supplied 5‐kg seed kits to key farmers designated as “group leaders,” who conducted scaling‐out meetings to disseminate the seed based on each farm’s rice land area. A total of 1,515 kg of seed was distributed to Seputih Raman, Sukadana, Pekalongan, and Metro Raya villages. Group leaders monitored farmers to make sure they would sow the lines separately by package and not in a bulk mixture, and they are assessing the general progress of the crop throughout the growing season. This process assures the quality of the on‐farm tests. Once the package is finalized, it will be ready to
130
disseminate through CURE and local government channels that have already collaborated in the conduct of on‐farm tests. Another major technology output has been CURE’s investigation of rice genetic diversification as a tool to maintain the productivity of improved varieties that are less resistant to blast than traditional varieties such as Sirendah. Farmers have always been interested in higher‐yielding improved varieties, but they have been discouraged by these materials’ susceptibility to blast. The proposed technology would allow them to grow their trusted, but low‐yielding, traditional varieties with higher‐yielding modern cultivars, while reducing the incidence of blast. However, the investigation has yet to produce conclusive results about the most effective ratio of rows of improved varieties to traditional varieties. Experiments conducted in farmers’ fields showed that interplanting one to two rows of a moderately susceptible variety with four to six rows of a modern or traditional variety that is moderately resistant to blast can reduce neck blast. However, results suggest that the tall modern variety outcompeted the shorter modern variety when interplanted with at least two rows of the modern variety. More research will be required before the findings can be distilled into decision tools or management principles for widespread use by farmers. Farmers in the area prefer to mix in the same field two modern varieties that have the same plant height, duration, and grain quality. Disseminating management principles for seed health management The Working Group determined that seed health management should be prioritized for this key site. Luckily, WG6‐Lampung could adopt a community seed bank (CSB) model developed by its sister site in Arakan Valley to achieve this objective. The activities for promoting proper seed health included diagnosing farmers’ problems through a 2005 survey, training and follow‐up monitoring with the assistance of an IRRI seed health consultant, and sustaining the knowledge in the community by training key farmers to train their co‐agriculturalists. Experiments were also conducted in farmers’ fields so that farmers could observe the differences between high‐quality seeds and the seeds they produced and stored in terms of plant growth, pest injuries, and yield. Seed health specialist Dr. Sri Wahyuni is the on‐site resource person for the CSB, and the specific activities can be reviewed in section “d” of Output 1.2 of this report. By the end of the ADB‐RETA 6136 Project, 62 farmers in five villages were participating in the Lampung CSB. The success of this activity is evident from the fact that all participating farmers had produced a seed surplus for the 2007‐08 cropping season, and they were expected to exchange/sell seeds with/to others. As farmers saved seed from experimental lines that were tested in PVS but that had not been officially released, their sowings are being monitoring and reported to the Directorate of Seed Development (DSD) of the Department of Agriculture.
131
Output 3 Capacity of NARES strengthened for implementing integrative and participatory technology development and dissemination. WG6‐Lampung took advantage of every opportunity to train team members with the concepts and skills of farmer participatory research. The team’s leadership was familiarized with these methods at a workshop conducted at the 2004 CURE Steering Committee meeting in Thailand, while field staff received specific skills training at the participatory approaches workshop at IRRI HQs in 2005 and 2006. Furthermore, cross‐site visits to the sister site in Arakan Valley, Philippines (2005), and to the CURE key site in Bangladesh (2006) were useful in exchanging ideas and learning about the application of these practices to the respective environments. Team members’ participation in the Rice Technology Transfer Systems (RTTS) workshop in South Korea also expanded the scope of their knowledge of technology dissemination. The Working Group also capitalized on technical skills training in the marker‐assisted selection workshop at IRRI HQs in 2005. Specific training activities are listed in Table 67. Table 67. NARES’ capacity‐building activities, CURE WG6‐Lanpung, Indonesia.
Training course/activity WG6‐Lampung participants Innovative Research Methods and Strategies for Conducting Research in Rainfed Environments Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand, 4 June 2004
Dr. Suwarno, key site coordinator; Dr. Casiana Vera Cruz, Working Group leader
Advances in Marker‐Assisted Selection Workshop IRRI HQ, Los Baños, Philippines, 21‐24 Feb. 2005
Joko Prasetiyono, Mr. Reflinur Bayirin
Cross‐site visit, and review and planning meeting with WG6‐Arakan Valley Arakan Valley, Philippines, 16‐18 Aug. 2005
Dr. Suwarno, Mr. Yoyo Soelaeman
Rice Technology Transfer Systems in Asia Suwon, South Korea, 28 Aug.‐11 Sept. 2005
Mr. Aris Hairmansis, Mr. Pramu Sunyoto
Participatory Approaches for Agricultural Research & Extension IRRI HQ, Los Baños, Philippines, 21 Nov.‐2 Dec. 2005
Mr. Santoso
Rice Technology Transfer Systems in Asia Suwon, South Korea, 20 Aug.‐3 Sept. 2006
Dr. Sri Wahyuni
Showcase of diverse rice‐growing environments and boro rice in Bangladesh Rural Development Academy, Bogor, and BRRI Regional Station, Rangpur, 10‐11 March 2006
Dr. Hamden Pane
Participatory Approaches for Agricultural Research & Extension IRRI HQ, Los Baños, Philippines , 7‐18 Aug. 2006
Mr. Yoyo Soelaeman
132
Output 4 Farmer acceptability and viability of innovative production systems assessed; policymakers and development authorities sensitized on supporting sector needs for wider adoption. WG6‐Lampung has actively involved local government officials in its field days, which has resulted in substantial discussions about the potential of the technologies and how to support scaling‐out efforts. The initial discussions resulted in the local governments recommending villages outside the CURE network to receive seeds. Villages in subdistricts Way Bungur, Batang Hari Nuban, Way Jepara, and Raman Utara received 784 kg of seed of improved varieties or a total cultivated area of about 25 ha for the 2005‐06 cropping season. In the 2006‐07 cropping season, local governments agreed to provide credit and extension services to support CURE’s scaling out of new varieties in Purbolinggo, Sukadana, Seputih Raman, and Rumbiya villages for a total sown area of 60 ha. The Working Group has also engaged national authorities through the DSD to promote the evaluations of new lines/varieties in multilocational trials in Indonesia in both the 2006‐07 and 2007‐08 cropping seasons. This reflects the national government’s recognition of the importance of WG6‐Lampung’s work in developing a package of seeds with broad‐spectrum blast resistance. The DSD tested these materials in Central Java, in West Java, and at non‐CURE sites in South Sumatra.
133
Appendix 1. The CURE Project Logical Framework Design summary
Description Performance indicators/targets Monitoring mechanisms
Assumptions & risks
Goal: Better food security for poor farmers in the marginal and diverse rainfed environments in monsoon South and Southeast Asia, through more sustainable and resilient rice‐based production systems.
Reduction in number and frequency of households in marginal environments experiencing hungry months during climatically adverse years.
Surveys and development studies conducted by government and ODA agencies.
Continuation of pro‐poor government policies that give priority to the marginalized areas.
Purpose To mobilize rice knowledge through problem‐driven, impact‐oriented, interdisciplinary research to increase rice productivity, reduce risks, and provide opportunities for diversifying income sources of resource‐poor farm households.
Farmers at the key sites are able to
• Improve their rice productivity by at least 20%, and
• Increase their cropping intensity by at least 75% in areas where multiple seasons are possible.
Research and extension personnel adopt integrated and participatory approaches in technology development.
End‐of‐project impact assessment. Center‐commissioned external review of CURE and the Program for Fragile Rice Environments of IRRI.
Government endorsement and support for implementing demand‐driven research and extension approaches.
Output 1 Feasible cropping innovations that combine complementary technologies for increasing productivity and reducing risks in rice‐based cropping systems developed and evaluated with farmers, and experiences shared across key sites of the target rainfed environments.
Output 2 Knowledge distilled into decision tools, management principles, and operational guidelines that are extension‐ready; extrapolation domains of improved production systems identified.
Output 3 Capacity of NARES strengthened for implementing integrative and participatory technology development and dissemination. Output 4 Farmer acceptability and viability of innovative production systems assessed, and policymakers and development authorities
sensitized on supporting sector needs for wider adoption.
134
Appendix 2. Research Activities Related to the Logical Framework Output 1 Feasible cropping innovations that combine complementary technologies for increasing productivity and reducing risks in rice‐
based cropping systems and evaluated with farmers, and experiences shared across the key sites of the target rainfed environments.
Activity 1.1 Inventory existing new and indigenous technologies (varieties, crop management practices, cropping systems) specifically suited to the target environment, and design interdisciplinary on‐farm trials that incorporate the key technological interventions needed to solve specific production problems on‐site.
Activity 1.2 Conduct at multiple locations farmer participatory trials and evaluation of integrated use of tolerant varieties and matching crop management practices that enhance crop performance under stress and take into account limited time windows for cropping and resource endowments of farmers.
Activity 1.3 Organize cross‐site visits across networks of on‐farm demonstrations that promote exchange of experiences and knowledge among farmers and R&D workers on different approaches and production systems that emerge under different circumstances.
Output 2 Knowledge distilled into decision tools, management principles, and operational guidelines that are extension‐ready, and extrapolation domains of improved production systems identified.
Activity 2.1 Distill location‐specific experiences and results in “global” lessons and decision rules that can be applied to similar environments. Activity 2.2 Develop extension‐ready information kits in a variety of distribution media that can be further modified by NARES and extension
agencies into culturally sensitive materials in local languages for dissemination to farmers. Activity 2.3 Compile and analyze statistical data, reports, maps, and remote‐sensing data to determine the target domains for different sets of
technologies and interventions. Output 3 Capacity of NARES strengthened for implementing integrative and participatory technology development and dissemination. Activity 3.1 Conduct training involving NARES partners on specific technical skills. Activity 3.2 Familiarize research teams, including NARES partners, with participatory technology development and extension approaches
(including development of farmer‐friendly informational materials) through mutual learning on‐the‐job and specialized training. Activity 3.3 Design and deploy procedures for monitoring crop performance in relation to technical management of farmers and their
socioeconomic strategies. Output 4 Farmer acceptability and variability of innovative production systems assessed; policymakers and development authorities
sensitized on supporting sector needs for wider adoption. Activity 4.1 Devise and deploy effective evaluation procedures for assessing socioeconomic and environmental effects of adopting the newer
innovations in cropping and cropping systems. Activity 4.2 Familiarize research teams, including NARES partners, with participatory technology development and extension approaches
(including development of farmer‐friendly informational materials) through mutual learning on‐the‐job and specialized training. Activity 4.3 Compile data and feedback from farmers and rural communities that identify constraints to and opportunities for the effective
135
adoption of improved agricultural practices. Activity 4.4 Publicize project progress and achievements to relevant government authorities, and hold dialogues on policy and other
development implications for enhancing desired outcomes from such agricultural R&D efforts.
136
Appendix 3. Summary of Star Technologies Developed from Project Support. Working Group 1 for drought‐prone lowlands Raipur, India
• Crop management options integrating direct‐seeded establishment methods with improved weed control and nutrient management practices;
• Identification of suitable postemergence herbicides for effective weed control in direct‐seeded rice;
• Intensification of rice‐based systems with new establishment practices allowing for early rice harvest and improved chances for a postharvest nonrice crop, such as chickpea; and
• Through farmer participatory trials, the genotypes ARB6, ARB8, and IR74371‐46 were identified for their high drought tolerance and nominated to India’s national varietal testing and release program.
Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand
• Participatory development of a decision‐support tool for site‐specific nutrient management for farmers in northeastern Thailand and accompanying training materials to teach researchers and extensionists working in this ecosystem;
• Through farmer participatory methods, the first KDML backcross derivative, RD33, was developed and officially released to farmers on 6 March 2007. This variety has high blast tolerance and matures approximately 1 to 2 weeks earlier than KDML 105, reducing its exposure to late‐season drought in northeastern Thailand, and it is indistinguishable in quality from KDML 105.
Working Group 2 for submergence‐prone lowlands Both sites The Sub1 gene for flash‐flood tolerance has been introgressed into the varieties popular with farmers, Swarna‐Sub1, Sambha‐Sub1, and IR64‐Sub1, and was tested in farmers’ fields at the CURE key sites in Faizabad, India, and Rangpur, Bangladesh. Faizabad, India
• A package of improved nursery management practices, that is, nutrient management, lower seedling density, and immediate transplanting (vs. a 24‐hour delay) after uprooting seedlings from a nursery, can produce quality seedlings better able to withstand flash‐flood conditions in the main field, that have better recovery after water recession, and that give higher yield for both submergence‐tolerant and nontolerant varieties.
• Through farmer participatory trials, NDR8002, a genotype with moderate drought tolerance and high yield (5.0–6.5 t ha–1) was released by India’s national varietal testing and release program. In addition, 14 and eight new genotypes are undergoing testing by the national and state varietal release programs, respectively. All these varieties are
137
characterized by higher yields than farmers’ usual varieties, and among them have good to excellent submergence tolerance, resistance to the important biotic stresses of this ecosystem, and one each that is suitable for deepwater or delayed transplanting.
Rangpur, Bangladesh
• New rice establishment methods using either a drum seeder for wet‐direct seeding or a lithao for dry‐direct seeding that can sow the crop earlier and with less labor, resulting in higher yield and an earlier rice harvest so farmers can get a more timely seeding of a postrice crop, potato, which can be followed by a third crop, all on the same piece of ground. This system provides rice during the hungry months (monga) and provides wage‐labor opportunities for agricultural workers at an otherwise slack employment period. The use of short‐duration variety BRRI dhan 33 with either new or usual establishment practices can also advance the rice harvest for the same impact on hunger mitigation and diversification/intensification with nonrice crops.
• Identification of the landrace Jati Balam as a potential donor source for breeding tolerance of rice for medium stagnant water conditions, in addition to identifiying 18 IRRI advanced lines with good survival and tolerance of flash‐flood conditions.
• Improved nursery management involving a low seeding rate and fertilizer management for producing quality seedlings that have better chances of survival under flooded conditions.
• New double‐transplanting (bolon) practices to improve plant survival in flash‐flood conditions; these practices include transplanting 30‐day‐old seedlings at closer spacings and new nutrient management in the main field.
Working Group 3 for salt‐affected lowlands Cuttack, India
• A package of integrated crop and natural resource management (CNRM) practices, which, when used with newly identified improved salt‐tolerant varieties (specific to wet‐ and dry‐season conditions), can improve overall system productivity. This package can improve not only the wet‐season main crop productivity, but also allows farmers to expand their limited dry‐season cropping area, when seasonal salinity levels are usually high, to buffer against any crop losses that might occur in the wet season. The package involves the following components:
o Early transplanting to improve dry‐season rice productivity by avoiding the risk of high salinity at a sensitive growth stage such as flowering.
o Improved nursery nutrient management for robust seedlings and seedling handling (older seedlings transplanted at closer spacings) to increase rice productivity in the wet season.
o Effective main field nutrient management practices involving Sesbania for green manuring and the aquatic fern Azolla as bio‐fertilizer for sustained nutrient availability, which resource‐poor farmers can adopt at very little cost.
138
• Salt‐tolerant nonrice crops identified to diversify rice‐based systems for enhancing the livelihoods of rural resource‐poor households. These crops are sunflower, which farmers value as a source of cooking oil, chilli, watermelon, and okra.
• Six CRRI lines identified and nominated to the national varietal testing and release program that can yield at least 4.0 t ha–1 in the coastal saline ecosystem: CR 2069‐16‐1 (IET 19680); CR 2092‐141‐2 (IET 19471); CR 2093‐7‐1 (IET 19468); CR 2094‐46‐3 (IET 18696); CR 2070‐52‐2 (IET 18692); and one line nominated for sodic soils, CR 2096‐71‐2 (IET 18697).
• Many salt‐tolerant landraces were also identified that can be used as donors for breeding rice for salt‐affected ecosystems for future backstopping of the breeding program.
Working Group 4 for sloping rotational uplands Luang Prabang, Laos
• Through PVS trials across the northern Lao provinces, suitable traditional varieties have been identified for short‐fallow and intensely cropped upland areas, as well as improved materials for more favorable uplands, that can provide better yields than farmers’ usual cultivars.
• Suitable varieties, Mak Nge and Meuang Nga, identified for gall midge resistance in lowland fields of upland areas.
• Cold‐tolerant varieties identified for lowland fields of upland areas, such as IR62445‐2B‐12‐12 (3.10 t ha–1), IR6244‐2B‐73‐2‐2‐1 (2.86 t ha–1), and K39‐96‐1‐1‐1‐2.
• Crop diversification for short‐fallow upland fields through a rice‐pigeon pea/sticklac intercropping system that can enrich soils and thus contribute to better rice productivity, and that allows farmers to earn income by harvesting and selling sticklac, which is a raw material for industrial products.
• Improved management practices to control the invasive weed species Imperata cylindrica for fallow rotational upland fields.
• Rice–rice bean as a suitable rotation crop that could improve soil conditions for better rice productivity and rice yield.
Working Group 5 for drought‐prone plateau uplands Hazaribag, India
• A short‐duration (90 days) variety, Anjali, with moderate drought tolerance and good blast resistance has been identified for improved rice production in bunded and unbunded uplands; and the high‐yielding elite line RR345‐2 was nominated to the national varietal testing and release program. Farmers gave this line a favorable evaluation in the PVS; it is phenotypically similar to Brown Gora, but better‐yielding.
• Improved crop establishment methods are now available for unbunded uplands, such as broadcast seeding in furrows + plow pass establishment system to mitigate drought effects and reduce the labor requirements for establishing the crop. Another new
139
practice, seeding behind the plow, is an effective option for farmers using a similar practice.
• New crop diversification/intensification practices, which can allow farmers to harvest rice one month earlier, and allows the sowing of a nonrice crop, pigeon pea, which can be consumed by the household or sold in the market. If there is sufficient residual soil moisture or late rains, farmers may also consider sowing a postrice chickpea crop.
Working Group 6 for intensive upland systems with long growing season Arakan Valley, Philippines
• An effective model for a community seed bank developed for in situ rice germplasm conservation of local varieties and as a reliable source for healthy,
quality seeds that has reduced seed scarcity. • Identification of modern upland varieties, such as UPL Ri5 that can raise rice
productivity, allowing farmers to save their traditional varieties for marketing to niche markets.
• Mixed cropping practices for intensifying the rice‐based system with nonrice crops, such as peanut, mungbean, and/or maize, developed to improve food security and enhance household livelihood.
• Rice genetic diversification, that is, planting two different rice varieties in specified row ratios developed to control disease and improve yield.
Lampung, Indonesia
• A community seed bank has been established for in situ rice germplasm conservation of local varieties and as a reliable source for healthy, quality seeds.
• Promising upland rice varieties and farmers’ preferred varieties/lines identified, which are being developed into a seed package with broad‐spectrum blast resistance that is being validated in farmers’ fields.
140
Appendix 4. CURE Scientific Publications, Presentations, and Posters Resulting from Research Supported by the Project WG1‐Raipur Haefele SM, Bouman BAM. 2008. Drought‐prone rainfed lowland rice in Asia: Limitations and
management options. Proceedings of the Drought Frontier Project Planning Workshop, Los Baños, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute, 2‐6 Oct. 2006. (In press.)
Haefele SM, Hijmans RJ. 2008. Soil quality in rice‐based rainfed lowlands of Asia: characterization and distribution. Proceedings of the International Rice Congress 2006, New Delhi, India, 9‐13 Oct. 2006. p 297‐308. (In press.)
Haefele SM, Konboon Y, Patil S, Mishra VN, Mazid MA, Tuong TP. 2008. Water by nutrient interactions in rainfed lowland rice: mechanisms and implications for improved nutrient management. Proceedings of the CURE Special Workshop: Natural Resource Management for Poverty Reduction and Environmental Sustainability in Fragile Rice‐Based Systems, Dhaka, Bangladesh, March 2006. (In press.)
Johnson DE, Haefele SM, Rathore AL, Romyen P, Pane H. 2008. Direct seeding of rice and opportunities for improving productivity in Asia. Proceedings of the DFID Workshop in Dhaka, Bangladesh, March 2006 (in press).
Kumar A, Atlin GN. 2008. Germplasm development for drought‐prone environments: progress and implications for CRNM. Proceedings of the CURE Special Workshop: Natural Resource Management for Poverty Reduction and Environmental Sustainability in Fragile Rice‐Based Systems, Dhaka, Bangladesh, March 2006. (In press.)
Pal S, Haefele SM, Pandey S. 2008. Agricultural diversification in rainfed regions of India: policy, developments, and sustainability issues. Proceedings of the CURE Special Workshop: Natural Resource Management for Poverty Reduction and Environmental Sustainability in Fragile Rice‐Based Systems, Dhaka, Bangladesh, March 2006. (In press.)
Rathore AL, Romyen P, Mazid AM, Pane H, Haefele SH, Johnson, DE. 2008. Challenges and opportunities of direct seeding in rice‐based rainfed lowlands of Asia. Proceedings of the CURE Special Workshop: Natural Resource Management for Poverty Reduction and Environmental Sustainability in Fragile Rice‐Based Systems, Dhaka, Bangladesh, March 2006. (In press.)
Sharma G, Patil SK, Buresh RJ, Mishra VN, Das RO, Haefele SM, Shrivastava LK. 2005. Crop performance and nitrogen dynamics in rainfed lowland rice–legume cropping systems as related to rice establishment method. Field Crops Res. 92:17‐33.
Singh AP, Kolhe SS, Rathore AL, Haefele SM. 2006. Susceptibility and recovery pattern of popular rice cultivars against post‐emergence herbicides in dry‐seeded rainfed rice and effects on seed yields. Proceedings of the National Symposium on “Conservation and management of agro‐resources in accelerating the food production for 21st century,” Raipur, India, 14‐15 Dec. 2006, p 292‐294.
Posters and talks Haefele SM. 2006. The Consortium for Unfavorable Rice Environments (CURE) at Raipur:
integrated crop management options for higher productivity and lower production risk in
141
drought‐prone eastern India. Poster presented at the IFAD‐CURE workshop in Raipur, India, January 2006.
Haefele SM. 2006. The Consortium for Unfavorable Rice Environments (CURE) at Raipur: the various components of farmers’ participation in the process of technology development. Poster presented at the IFAD‐CURE workshop in Raipur, India, January 2006.
Haefele SM, Atlin G, Kam SP, Johnson DE. 2004. Improving farmers’ livelihood in rainfed rice‐based lowlands of Asia. Presented at the Deutscher Tropentag 2004, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany, 5‐7 Oct. 2004. Available at www.tropentag.de/2004/abstracts/full/128.pdf.
Haefele SM, Kumar A, Johnson DE, Rathore AL, Verulkar SB, Mishra VN,Taunk SK. 2007. Drought‐prone rainfed lowland rice: advances in germplasm and management options. Presented at the South Asian Conference: Water in Agriculture: Management Options for Increasing Crop Productivity per Drop of Water, Raipur, India, 15‐17 Nov. 2007.
Jabbar SMA, Siopongco JDLC, Amarante ST, Cosico WC, Sta Cruz PC, Haefele SM. 2006. Nitrogen use efficiency in selected rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes grown under varying water regimes and nitrogen levels. Poster presented at the International Rice Congress 2006, New Delhi, India, 9‐13 Oct. 2006.
Jabbar SMA, Haefele SM, Cosico WC, Amarante ST, Siopongco JDLC. 2006. Interaction of water and nitrogen stress at the vegetative stage of rice. Poster presented at the 36th Scientific Conference of the Crop Science Society of the Philippines, Puerto Princesa, Philippines.
Rathore AL, Haefele SM. 2007. Dry direct‐seeded rice for improved rainwater use, productivity and cropping intensity of lowland ecosystem. Presented at the South Asian Conference: Water in Agriculture: Management Options for Increasing Crop Productivity per Drop of Water, Raipur, India, 15‐17 Nov. 2007.
WG1‐Ubon Haefele SM. 2007. Black soil, green rice. Rice Today, April‐June 2007. Haefele SM, Bouman BAM. 2008. Drought‐prone rainfed lowland rice in Asia: limitations and
management options. Proceedings of the Drought Frontier Project Planning Workshop, October 2‐6 2006, International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines (in press).
Haefele SM, Knoblauch C, Gummert M, Konboon Y, Koyama S. 2007. Black carbon (bio‐char) in rice‐based systems: characteristics and opportunities. In: Woods WI, Teixeira W, Lehmann J, Steiner C, WinklerPrins A, editors. Terra Preta Nova: A Tribute to Wim Sombroek. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrech (invited manuscript, submitted).
Haefele SM, Konboon Y, Patil S, Mishra VN, Mazid MA, Tuong, TP. 2008. Water by nutrient interactions in rainfed lowland rice: mechanisms and implications for improved nutrient management. Proceedings of the CURE Resource Management Workshop in Dhaka, Bangladesh, March 2006. (In press.)
Haefele SM, Naklang K, Harnpichitvitaya D, Jearakongman S, Skulkhu E, Romyen P, Phasopa S, Tabtim S, Suriya‐arunroj D, Khunthasuvon S, Kraisorakul D, Youngsuk P, Amarante ST, Wade LJ. 2006. Factors affecting rice yield and fertilizer response in rainfed lowlands of northeast Thailand. Field Crops Res. 98:39‐51.
142
Johnson DE, Haefele SM, Rathore AL, Romyen P, Pane H. 2008. Direct seeding of rice and opportunities for improving productivity in Asia. Proceedings of the DFID Workshop in Dhaka, Bangladesh, March 2006. (In press.)
Naklang K, Harnpichitvitaya D, Amarante ST, Wade LJ, Haefele SM. 2006. Internal efficiency, nutrient uptake, and the relation to field water resources in rainfed lowland rice of northeast Thailand. Plant and Soil 286:193‐208.
Rathore AL, Romyen P, Mazid AM, Pane H, Haefele SH, Johnson DE. 2008. Challenges and opportunities of direct seeding in rice‐based rainfed lowlands of Asia. Proceedings of the CURE Resource Management Workshop in Dhaka, Bangladesh, March 2006. (In press.)
Posters and talks Amarante ST, Siopongco JDLC, Haefele SM, Konboon Y. 2007. Carbonized crop residues
(biochar) for soil amelioration in rice‐based systems. Poster presented at the Crop Science Society of the Philippines meeting, 12‐16 June 2007.
Haefele SM. 2005. Factors affecting fertilizer response in rice‐based rainfed lowlands of northeast Thailand and consequences for fertilizer recommendations. Poster prepared for the ASA‐CSSA‐SSSA International Annual Meetings (6‐10 November 2005), Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. Available online.
Haefele SM, Atlin G, Kam SP, Johnson DE. 2004. Improving farmers’ livelihood in rainfed rice‐based lowlands of Asia. Presented at the Deutscher Tropentag 2004, Humboldt University, 5‐7 October 2004, Berlin, Germany. Available online.
WG2‐Faizabad Castillo E, Santosa IE, Ram PC, Boamfa EI, Laarhoven LJJ, Reuss J, Jackson MB, FJM. Harren.
2007. Patterns of peroxidative methane emission from submerged rice seedlings indicate that damage from reactive oxygen species takes place during submergence and is not necessarily a post‐anoxic phenomenon. Planta 226:193‐202.
Ella ES, Ismail AM. 2006. Seedling nutrient status before submergence affects survival after submergence in rice. Crop Sci. (in press).
Flores NRL, Ismail AM, Diosnisio‐Sese ML. 2005. Gas exchange and leaf water status of contrasting rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes as affected by salt stress. Philipp. Agric. Sci. 88:40‐48.
Inubushi K, Castillo EG, Tuong TP, Ismail AM. 2004. Rice response to osmotic and ionic stress. Proceedings of the World Rice Research Conference, Tsukuba, Japan, 4‐7 Nov. 2004 p. 34.
Ismail AM. 2005. Revitalizing marginal lands: discovery of genes for tolerance of saline and phosphorus deficient soils to enhance and sustain productivity. Proceedings of GCP 2995 Annual Research Meeting. 29 Sept.‐1 Oct. 2005. Rome, Italy. p 3‐4.
Ismail AM, Flores NRL, Egdane JA, Dionisio‐Sese. 2005. ABA mediated early stomatal response to salt stress enhances salinity tolerance in rice. 18th Scientific conference of the Federation of Crop Science Societies of the Philippines. Philipp. J. Crop Sci. 30(Supl. 1):68.
Ismail AM, Heuer S, Thomson MJ, Wissuwa M. 2007. Genetic and genomic approaches to develop rice germplasm for problem soils. Plant Mol. Biol. 65:547‐570.
143
Kumar R, Sarawgi AK, Ramos C, Amarante ST, Ismail AM, Wade LJ. 2006. Partitioning of dry matter during drought stress in rainfed lowland rice. Field Crops Res. 96:455‐465.
Kumar M, Ram PC, Singh PN. 2005. Improving submergence tolerance and productivity of lowland rice (Oryza sativa L.) through nutrient management in nursery. Abstract: National Seminar on Plant Physiology: Crop Productivity and Quality Improvement through Physiological Interventions, held at Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari, India.
Kumar S, Singh PN, Singh N, Singh M, Singh BN, Ram PC, Setter TL. 2006. Screening of Ducula4/*2 Brookton double haploid populations and wheat varieties for germination and emergence under waterlogged sodic soil conditions. Proceedings of National Seminar on “Physiological and Molecular Approaches for the Improvement of Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Crops,” Kerala Agricultural University, Vellanikkara, Thrissur, Kerala, India, 28‐30 Nov. 2006. p 71.
Lafitte RH, Ismail AM, Bennett J. 2006. Abiotic stress tolerance in tropical rice: progress and the future. Oryza 43:171‐186.
Maghirang‐Rodriguez R, Pamplona R, Neeraja C, Sanchez A, Heuer S, Ismail A, Mackill D. 2005. Using modern genetics to reinforce plant breeding: a marker‐assisted backcrossing approach to submergence tolerance in rice. 18th Scientific conference of the Federation of Crop Science Societies of the Philippines. Philipp. J. Crop Sci. 30 (Supl. 1): 19.
Moradi F, Ismail AM. 2007. Responses of photosynthesis, chlorophyll fluorescence and ROS scavenging system to salt stress during seedling and reproductive stages in rice. Ann. Bot. 99:1161‐1173.
Paris T, Singh A, Singh VN, Ram PC. 2006. Mainstreaming social and gender concerns in participatory rice varietal improvement for rainfed environments in Eastern India. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Participatory Plant Breeding and Knowledge Management for Strengthening Rural Livelihoods, Chennai, India: M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation. p 102‐129.
Ram PC, Kumar M, Singh PN, Singh M, Singh U, Singh BB. 2004. CNRM technology intervention for sustainable rice production in fragile ecosystems of Eastern Uttar Pradesh. In: Rice production in U.P., key to food & nutritional security & improvement of farmers’ livelihood. Kumaraganj, Faizabad, India: Narendra Dev University of Agriculture & Technology.
Ram PC, Singh PN, Singh N, Singh U, Ram P, Singh BB. 2005. Importance of assimilate production and storage on submergence stress tolerance of lowland rice. Submitted for publication.
Ram PC, Singh PN, Singh VN, Ismail A. 2008. Physiological and molecular basis of abiotic stress tolerance in plants. In: Crop production and adaptation under diverse environments. Ram PC, Chaturvedi GS, editors. Chaura Rasta, Jaipur, India: Aavishkar Publishers and Distributors. (In press.)
Sarkar RK, Reddy JN, Sharma SG, Ismail AM. 2006. Physiological basis of submergence tolerance in rice and implications for crop improvement. Curr. Sci. 91:899‐906.
Prasad S, Ram PC, Singh J, Pratap Khan NA. 2007. Effect of waterlogging durations on plant height, leaf area, starch content, catalase activity and grain yield of maize genotypes. Int. J. Plant Sci. 2(2):180‐184.
144
Singh A, Ram PC, Singh BB, Singh PN. 2007. Identification of physiological marker traits associated with submergence tolerance of lowland rice, submitted to Indian Journal of Plant Physiology.
Singh AK, Ram PC, Singh S, Singh A, Singh A, Singh SP. 2006. Effect of phosphorus nutrition on seedling vigour, submergence tolerance and recovery of growth in rainfed lowland rice. Oryza 43(2):137‐142.
Singh A, Singh PC, Singh BB. n.d. Identification of physiological marker traits associated with submergence tolerance of lowland rice, submitted to Russian Journal of Plant Pathology.
Singh AK, Ram PC, Singh S, Singh A, Singh A, Singh SP. 2006. Effect of phosphorous nutrition on seedling vigour, submergence tolerance and recovery growth in rainfed lowland rice. Oryza 43(2):137‐142.
Singh BB, Singh AK, Singh VN, Singh KN. 2005. Evaluating sterility traits in F2 population of drought tolerant lines using molecular tools. Presented at the Second International Conference on Integrated Approaches to Sustain and Improve Production under Drought Stress, University of Rome, La Sapienza, Rome, Italy, 24‐28 Sept. 2005.
Singh N, Ram PC, Singh PN, Singh M, Kumar S, Singh BN, Singh BB, Setter TL. 2006. Environmental characterization of waterlogged sodic soils and technology validation for mitigating adverse effects of waterlogging in wheat. Proceedings of National Seminar on “Physiological and Molecular Approaches for the Improvement of Agricultural, Horticultural, and Forestry Crops.” Kerala Agricultural University, Vellanikkara, Thrissur, Kerala, 28‐30 Nov. 2006. p 68.
Singh PN, Ram PC, Singh A, Singh BB. 2005. Effect of seedling age on submergence tolerance of rainfed lowland rice. Ann. Plant Physiol. 19:22‐26.
Singh PN, Ram PC, Singh RP, Singh U, Singh N, Pandey D, Ismail A. 2006. Effect of seedling age and submergence duration on alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) activity of rice varieties (Oryza sativa L.). Proceedings of National Seminar on “Physiological and Molecular Approaches for the Improvement of Agricultural, Horticultural, and Forestry Crops,” Kerala Agricultural University, Vellanikkara, Thrissur, Kerala, 28‐30 Nov. 2006. p 69.
Singh PN, Ram PC, Singh N, Singh M, Kumar S, Singh BN, Setter TL. (2006). Physiological studies on waterlogging tolerance of wheat varieties having variable responses to micro element toxicity under sodic soils. Proceedings of National Seminar on “Physiological and Molecular Approaches for the Improvement of Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Crops,” Kerala Agricultural University, Vellanikkara, Thrissur, Kerala, 28‐30 Nov. 2006. p 70.
Singh S, Singh AK, Singh HP, Singh VN, Singh RS. 2005. Studies on combining ability and heterobeltiosis of organogenesis for salt tolerance in rice under in vitro conditions. Oryza 42:260‐267.
Singh U, Ram PC, Singh SP, Prasad B, Chaturvedi GS, Singh PN. 2006. Alkalinity induced changes in mobilization efficiency, seedling vigour, amylase and protease activities in rice genotypes. Indian J. Plant Physiol. (accepted).
Srivastava AK, Singh PN, Kumar S, Ram PC, Ismail A. 2007. Physiological changes associated with submergence tolerance in genetically diverse lowland rice genotypes. Trop. Agric. Res. 19:240‐253.
145
Tuong TP, Inubushi K, Ismail AM. 2004. Rice responses to salinity: comparative effects of osmotic and ionic stresses. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Soil with Low pH. Sendai, Japan, 1‐5 Aug. 2004.
Wissuwa M, Gamat G, Ismail AM. 2005. Is root growth under phosphorus deficiency affected by source or sink limitations? J. Exp. Bot. 56:1943‐1950.
Posters and talks Ram PC. 2006. Lead paper, “Abiotic stress tolerance in plants: challenges and opportunities.”
National seminar organized by the Indian Society for Plant Physiology, Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur, Kerala, India, 28‐30 Nov. 2006.
Ram PC, Kumar M, Singh PN, Singh M, Singh U, Singh BB. 2004. CNRM technology intervention for sustainable rice production in fragile ecosystems of Eastern Uttar Pradesh. In: Rice production in U.P., key to food & nutritional security & Improvement of farmers’ livelihood. Kumaraganj, Faizabad, India: Narendra Dev University of Agriculture & Technology.
Ram PC, Singh PN, Singh N, Singh U, Ram P, Singh BB. 2005. Importance of assimilate production and storage on submergence stress tolerance of lowland rice. Submitted for publication.
Ram PC, Singh PN, Singh VN, Singh U, Ismail A. 2006. CNRM approaches for breaking the yield barrier of flood‐prone rice. The 2nd International Rice Congress, New Delhi, 9‐13 Oct. 2006.
Ram PC, Singh PN, Singh N, Kumar S, Singh SP, Singh BB, Ismail A. 2007. Lead paper: Molecular and physiological aspects of yield enhancement in rice under submerged environments. National Seminar of Plant Physiology on “Physiological and molecular approaches for increasing yield and quality of agricultural, horticultural and medicinal plants under changing environments, Dapoli, Maharastra, India: Dr. B. S. Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth, 29 Nov.‐1 Dec. 2007.
Ismail AM. 2004. Enhancing and stabilizing productivity in unfavorable rainfed environments: an integrated approach. In: Rice production in U.P: key to food and nutritional security and improvement of farmers’ livelihood, Lucknow, India, 13‐14 Dec. 2004.
Kumar M, Ram PC, Singh PN. 2005. Improving submergence tolerance and productivity of lowland rice (Oryza sativa L.) through nutrient management in nursery. Abstract: National Seminar on Plant Physiology: Crop Productivity and Quality Improvement through Physiological Interventions, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari, India.
Paris T, Singh AJ, Singh RP, Singh J, Ram PC, Delos Reyes‐Cueno A. 2006. Helping poor women farmers improve their livelihoods in rice areas suffering from sodicity: a case in eastern Uttar Pradesh. In: Abstracts of the 2nd International Rice Congress, New Delhi, India, 9‐13 Oct. 2006. p 548.
Paris T, Singh A, Delos Reyes‐Cueno A, Singh VN, Atlin G. 2007. Assessing the impact of participatory research in rice breeding on women farmers: a case study in eastern Uttar Pradesh, India. Exp. Agric. 44:1‐16.
146
Ram PC, Singh PN, Singh VN, Singh U, Ismail A. 2006. CNRM approaches for breaking the yield barrier of flood‐prone rice. The 2nd International Rice Congress, New Delhi, 9‐13 Oct. 2006.
Singh BB, Singh AK, Singh VN, Singh KN. 2005. Evaluating sterility traits in F2 population of drought tolerant lines using molecular tools. Presented at the Second International Conference on Integrated Approaches to Sustain and Improve Production under Drought Stress, University of Rome, La Sapienza, Rome, 24‐28 Sept. 2005.
Singh PN, Singh N, Singh RP, Singh U, Ismail A, Ram PC. 2006.Improving health and productivity of sodic soils of Indo Gangetic plains. The 2nd International Rice Congress, New Delhi, 9‐13 Oct. 2006.
Singh U, Ram PC, Singh PN, Singh N, Ismail A. 2006. Genetic variability in anti‐oxidative defense system in relation to submergence tolerance of lowland rice. The 2nd International Rice Congress, New Delhi, 9‐13 Oct. 2006.
Singh, VN, Ram PC, Singh A, Paris T, Ismail A, Mackill D. 2006. Germplasm improvement for submergence tolerance in rainfed lowland rice: a participatory approach. The 2nd International Rice Congress, New Delhi, 9‐13 Oct. 2006.
Wissuwa M, Kristy Gatdula K, Ismail A. 2004. Candidate gene characterization at the Pup1 locus: a major QTL increasing tolerance to phosphorus deficiency. International Rice Functional Genomics Symposium, Tucson, Arizona, November 2004.
WG2‐Rangpur Das KK, Sarkar RK, Ismail AM. 2005. Elongation ability and non‐structural carbohydrate levels
in relation to submergence tolerance in rice. Plant Sci. 168:131‐136. Ella E, Ismail AM. 2004. Nutrient status before submergence affects seedling survival after
flooding in rice. Proceedings of the World Rice Research Conference, 4‐7 Nov. 2004, Tsukuba, Japan. p 236.
Ismail AM, Ella ES, Holt‐Stevens DF. 2004. Enhanced levels of ethylene and amylase activity associated with tolerance to oxygen stress during germination in rice. Proceedings of the World Rice Research Conference, 5‐7 Nov. 2004, Tsukuba, Japan. p 235.
Ram PC, Mazid MA, Ismail AM, Singh PN, Singh VN, Haque MA, Singh U, Ella ES, Singh BB. 2006. Crop and resource management in flood‐prone areas: farmers’ strategies and research developments. Proceedings of CURE’s Special Workshop: Natural Resource Management for Poverty Reduction and Environmental Sustainability in Fragile Rice‐Based Ecosystems. Dhaka, Bangladesh, 8‐9 March 2006. (In press.)
WG3‐Cuttack Ismail A, Mahata KR, Singh DP. 2008. Crop and resource management for high and stable
productivity in coastal saline areas. Proceedings of CURE’s Special Workshop: Natural Resource Management for Poverty Reduction and Environmental Sustainability in Fragile Rice‐Based Ecosystems. Dhaka, Bangladesh, 8‐9 March 2006. (In press.)
Mahata KR, Singh DP, Saha S, Ismail AM. 2006. Integrated nutrient management for enhancing rice productivity in coastal saline soils of eastern India. Abstract, Proceedings of the 2nd International Rice Congress, New Delhi, 9‐13 Oct. 2006. p 369‐370.
147
Mahata, KR, Singh DP, Ismail AM. 2008. Crop and resource management for high and stable productivity in coastal saline areas. Proceedings of CURE’s Special Workshop: Natural Resource Management for Poverty Reduction and Environmental Sustainability in Fragile Rice‐Based Ecosystems. Dhaka, Bangladesh, 8‐9 March 2006. (In press.)
Saha S, Singh DP. 2008. Coastal saline ecosystem in India. Proceedings of CURE’s Special Workshop: Natural Resource Management for Poverty Reduction and Environmental Sustainability in Fragile Rice‐Based Ecosystems. Dhaka, Bangladesh, 8‐9 March 2006. (In press.)
Saha S, Paris T, Singh DP, Mahata KR, Delos Reyes‐Cueno A, Sharma SG. 2006. Including gender analysis in assessing the needs, constraints and opportunities for improving the livelihoods of farming households in the coastline saline areas of Orissa. Abstract, Proceedings of the 2nd International Rice Congress, New Delhi, India, 9‐13 Oct. 2006. p 542.
Sen P, Mahata KR, Singh DP, Singh RK. 2006. Identification of suitable salt tolerant rice genotypes for coastal saline areas of Eastern India. Abstract, Proceedings of the 2nd International Rice Congress, New Delhi, 9‐13 Oct. 2006. p 222‐223.
Singh DP, Mahata KR, Saha S, Ismail AM. 2006. Crop diversification options for rice‐based cropping system for higher land and water productivity in coastal saline areas of eastern India. Abstract, Proceedings of the 2nd International Rice Congress, New Delhi, 9‐13 Oct. 2006. p 475.
Posters and talks Delos Reyes‐Cueno A, Paris T, Singh A, Singh YP, Saha S. 2006. Development of technologies to
harness the productivity potential of salt‐affected areas of the Indo‐Gangetic River Basin: socioeconomic component. Paper presented at the 2nd Review and Planning Meeting of Challenge Program for Water & Food, Karnal, India, 24‐27 April 2006.
Mahata KR, Singh DP, Saha S, Ismail AM, Haefele S. 2007. Improving rice productivity in coastal saline soils of the Mahanadi Delta through integrated nutrient management. Paper presented to Delta 7: Managing the Coastal Land‐Water Interface in Tropical Delta Systems conference, Bang Saen, Thailand; 7‐9 Nov. 2007. p 39‐40.
Mahata KR, Singh DP, Saha S, Ismail AM. 2007. Water management for dry season rice in salt affected coastal soils. Paper presented to International Symposium on Management of Coastal Ecosystem: Technological Advancement and Livelihood Security, Kolkata, India, 27‐30 Oct. 2007. p 71.
Paris TR, Saha S, Singh DP, Mahata KR, Cueno‐Delos Reyes A, Zolvinski S, Ismail AM. 2007. Assessing the needs, constraints and livelihood opportunities in coastal salinity environments: a case in Orissa, India. Paper presented to Delta 7: Managing the Coastal Land‐Water Interface in Tropical Delta Systems conference, Bang Saen, Thailand; 7‐9 Nov. 2007. p 20.
Saha S, Mahata KR, Singh DP, Ismail AM. 2007. Crop establishment strategies for enhancing rice yield in coastal saline ecosystem. Paper presented to International Symposium on Management of Coastal Ecosystem: Technological Advancement and Livelihood Security, Kolkata, India, 27‐30 Oct. 2007. p 14‐15.
148
Sen P, Mahata KR, Singh DP. 2007. Development and evaluation of salt tolerant rice genotypes for coastal saline areas of eastern India. Paper presented to International Symposium on Management of Coastal Ecosystem: Technological Advancement and Livelihood Security, Kolkata, India, 27‐30 Oct. 2007. p 10.
Singh DP, Mahata KR, Saha S, Ismail AM. 2007. Crop intensification for improving water productivity and rural livelihoods in coastal saline soils of the Mahanadi Delta. Paper presented to Delta 7: Managing the Coastal Land‐Water Interface in Tropical Delta Systems conference, Bang Saen, Thailand; 7‐9 Nov. 2007. p 41.
Singh RK, Redoña E. 2007. Gregorio G, Salam AM, Islam R, Singh DP, Sen P, Saha S, Mahata KR, Sharma SG, Pandey MP, Sajise AG, Mendoza R, Toledo MC, Dante A, Ismail AM, Paris T, Haefele S, Thomson MC, Zolvinski S, Singh YP, Nayak AK, Singh RB, Mishra VK, Sharma DK, Gautam RK, Ram PC, Singh PN, Verma OP, Singh A, Lang NT. 2007. Right rice in the right place: systematic exchange and farmer‐centered evaluation of rice germplasm for salt‐affected areas. Paper presented to Delta 7: Managing the Coastal Land‐Water Interface in Tropical Delta Systems conference, Bang Saen, Thailand; 7‐9 Nov. 2007. p 30.
Singh DP, Mahata KR, Saha S, Ismail AM. 2007. Enhancing rice productivity in coastal saline ecosystem through use of salt‐tolerant varieties and improved crop management. Paper presented to International Symposium on Management of Coastal Ecosystem: Technological Advancement and Livelihood Security, Kolkata, India; 27‐30 Oct. 2007. p 14.
WG5 Hazaribag Varier M et al. 2008. Crop management options for upland rice and upland rice based cropping
systems (manuscript in preparation). Posters and talks Variar M, Sinha PK, Shukla VD, Maiti D, Mandal NP, Singh CV. 2006. Energy and resource
efficient technologies for the establishment and management of upland rice based systems. Poster presented at the 2nd International Rice Congress 2006, New Delhi, 9‐13 Oct. 2006.
WG6‐Arakan Valley Dela Paz MAG, Garcia MRF, Beligan GA, Reveche MYV, Oña IP, Ardales E, Goodwin PH, Vera
Cruz CM. 2008. Genetic variability of Bipolaris oryzae in the Philippines (manuscript in preparation).
Dela Paz MAG, Goodwin PH, Raymundo AK, Ardales EY, Vera Cruz CM. 2006. Phylogenetic analysis based on ITS sequences and conditions affecting the type of conidial germination of Bipolaris oryzae. Plant Pathol. 55:756‐765. Doi: 10.1111/j.1365‐3059.2006.01439.x.
Oña IP, Castro S, Tagle A, Reveche MYV, Ardales E, Goodwin P, Han SS, Roh JH, Vera Cruz CM. 2008. Population shift in Magnaporthe oryzae at screening sites in the Philippines (manuscript in preparation).
Turnos LJ, Tangonan NG. 2006. Biodiversity of naturally‐occurring diseases, insect pests and weed species in upland rice fields at Arakan, Cotabato, Philippines. J. Nature Stud. 5:105‐133.
149
Posters and talks Banu SP, Miah B, Ali A, Brar D, Vera Cruz CM. 2006. New sources identified for resistance to
brown spot disease in rice. Poster presented at the International Rice Congress, New Delhi, India, October 2006.
Dela Pena F, Manalo MA, Perez L, Ardales E, Fukuta Y, Tagle A, Ona I, Kobayashi N, Vera Cruz CM. 2007. Distribution and occurrence of rice blast fungus, Pyricularia grisea in the Philippines. Paper presented at the special workshop on “Development and characterization of blast resistance using differential varieties in rice” organized by JIRCAS and IRRI at the 4th International Rice Blast Conference, Vaya Hotel, Changsha, China, 9‐13 Oct. 2007.
Hondrade RF. 2006. Community seed bank accomplishments. Presented to the 19th National Rice Research and Development Conference, Philippines Rice Research Institute, Nueva Ecija, Philippines, 3‐5 April 2006.
Hondrade RF, Hondrade E, Elarde S, Vera Cruz CM. 2004. On‐farm research on mixed cropping with rice in Arakan Valley. Poster presented at the Federation of Crop Science Society in the Philippines in Davao, Philippines, May 2004.
Oña IP, Garcia MRF, Dela Paz MAG, Beligan GA, Ardales E, Goodwin PH, Vera Cruz CM. 2007. Genetic variability of Bipolaris oryzae in the Philippines. Poster presented at the Federation of Crop Science Society in the Philippines in Tagaytay City, Philippines, 13‐15 June 2007.
Oña IP, Castro S, Ardales E, Goodwin PH, Han SS, Roh JH, Vera Cruz CM. 2007. Population shift in Magnaporthe oryzae at screening sites in the Philippines. Poster presented at the 4th International Rice Blast Conference held in Changsha, China, on 9‐14 Oct. 2007.
Oña IP, Elarde S, Hondrade E, Hondrade R, Paris T, Javier E, Vera Cruz CM. 2004. Interplanting Dinorado and NSIC Rc 9 in Arakan Valley: preliminary trial. Poster presented at the Federation of Crop Science Society in the Philippines in Davao, Philippines, in May 2004
Santoso A, Lubis E, Suwarno, Vera Cruz CM. 2007. Selection of breeding lines for diverse blast resistance. Poster presented at the 4th International Rice Blast Conference, Vaya Hotel, Changsha, China, 9‐14 Oct. 2007.
WG6‐Lampung Hairmansis A, Kustianto B, Lubis E, Suwarno. 2007. Increasing genetic diversity through
participatory varietal selection of upland rice in Lampung. Jurnal Penelitian Pertanian (submitted).
Suwarno, Lubis E, Hairmansis A, Nasution A. 2008. Development of package of 20 rice varieties for blast management (in preparation for rice blast book).
Vera Cruz CM, Castilla NP, Suwarno, Santoso, Hondrade E, Hondrade RF, Paris T, Elazegui FA. 2007. Rice disease management in the uplands of Indonesia and the Philippines. Proceedings of the CURE Special Workshop: Natural Resource Management for Poverty Reduction and Environmental Sustainability in Fragile Rice‐Based Systems, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 8‐9 March 2006 (submitted).
150
Posters and talks Banu SP, Miah B, Ali A, Brar D, Vera Cruz CM. 2006. New sources identified for resistance to
brown spot disease in rice. Poster presented at the International Rice Congress, New Delhi, India, October 2006.
Castilla NP, Suwarno, Santoso, Sulaeman, Y, Mew TW, Vera Cruz CM. 2008. Varietal diversification for the management of rice blast in the uplands of Indonesia. International Congress of Plant Pathology, Turin, Italy, 24‐29 August 2008. (Paper accepted.).
Castilla NP, Suwarno, Santoso, Sulaeman Y, Mew TW, Vera Cruz CM. 2008. Varietal diversification for the management of rice blast in the uplands of Indonesia. Poster to be presented at the International Congress of Plant Pathology, Turin, Italy, 24‐29 August 2008 (poster accepted).
Santoso, Nasution, Lubis E, Suwarno, Vera Cruz CM. 2007. Selection of breeding lines for diverse blast resistance. Poster presented in the 4th International Rice Blast Conference, Changsha, China, 9‐14 Oct. 2007.
Suwarno, Oka Adnyana IM. 2006. Diversification of improved varieties for blast management and increasing upland rice yield (in Indonesian). Paper presented in ICFORD Seminar, Bogor, Indonesia, 2 March 2006.