Accelerating Technology Adoption to Improve Rural Livelihoods in the Rainfed Eastern Gangetic Plains
(IRRI Ref. DPPC2002‐27)
Technical Report
submitted to the
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
July 2005
Contact:
Dr. Michael T. Jackson Director for Program Planning and Coordination (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‐[email protected] Mailing address: DAPO 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines
i
ACCELERATING TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION TO IMPROVE RURAL LIVELIHOODS IN THE RAINFED EASTERN GANGETIC PLAINS (TAG‐634)
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS REPORT (IPR) FOR THE YEAR 2004
PART I: Program Outline and Report Description Title of program: Accelerating Technology Adoption to Improve Rural Livelihoods in the Rainfed Eastern Gangetic Plains
IFAD task manager: Shantanu Mathur
Implementing institution and grant recipient: IRRI
Project Leader: Mahabub Hossain
Collaborating institutes:
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI); International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Center (CIMMYT); International Center for Research in Agroforestry
(ICRAF); International Center for Research in the Semi‐Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
Bangladesh
Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI); Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute
(BARI); Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE); WAVE Foundation (NGO)
India
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR); Assam Agricultural University (AAU),
Assam; Rajendra Agricultural University (RAU), Bihar; Central Rainfed Upland Rice
Research Station (CRURRS, ICAR), Hazaribagh, Jharkhand; Central Rice Research Institute (CRRI,
ICAR), Orissa; Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology (NDUAT),
Uttar Pradesh; Nanda Educational Foundation for Rural Development (NEFRD; NGO), Uttar
Pradesh; Holy Cross Krsihi Vigyan Kendra, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand; Birsa Agricultural
University, Ranchi, Bihar; Indira Gandhi Agricultural University (IGAU), Raipur,
Chattisgarh; Rama Krishna Mission (NGO), West Bengal; Vidhan Chandra Krishi
Vishwavidyalaya, West Bengal; Chinsurah Rice Research Station, West Bengal; Central
Agricultural University, Manipur
Nepal
Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), Kathmandu
Benefiting countries: Bangladesh, India, Nepal
ii
Starting date and duration: September 2003, 3 years
Amount of grant approved by IFAD: US$1,500,000
Reporting period: January 2004 to December 2004
Completed by: M. Zainul Abedin, Thelma Paris, and Olaf Erenstein
Date: July 2005
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
Executive summary 1
Introduction
Project background 4
Goals, objectives, and outputs 4
Management of project activities 5
Activities initiated in 2004
Project start‐up 8
Assessing farmers’ needs and matching needs with potential technologies 8
Benchmark database 10
Approach and methodology for establishing the benchmark database 10
Date collection tools 11
Technology validation and scaling‐up 12
Methodological approach in fast‐tracking technology adoption 12
Raipur, Chattisgarh, India 13
West Bengal, India 18
Central Rainfed Upland Rice Research Station, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, India
19
Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack, Orissa, India 21
Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam, India 23
Chuadanga site, Bangladesh 23
Pusa site in North Bihar, India 27
Manipur, India 27
Dinajpur‐Rangpu site, Bangladesh 29
Patna site, Bihar, India 32
Mau site, Uttar Pradesh, India 35
Parwanipur site, Nepal 35
Strengthening physical facilities of implementing partners 38
ICT‐based information management 38
Targeting RCTs using satellite date 38
Spatially referenced database 39
Project and Research Information Systems Module (PRISM) 39
iv
Lessons learned, issues, and problems encountered 40
From IRRI‐managed sites 40
Lessons learned and problems encountered at CIMMYT‐managed sites 42
Documents, reference materials, and publications 42
Workshops and training courses organized 43
Proposed activities for 2005 44
Socioeconomic and policy analysis 44
Technology validation and scaling up 44
ICT‐based information management 44
Appendices
Implementation guidelines for technology validation and scaling up using the community participatory approach to research (CPAR) in the project IFAD TAG 634
45
Suggested tools and methods in the participatory approach 52
Methodological framework for on‐farm research using farmer participatory approach
53
Summary of activities at sites managed by CIMMYT during 2004 54
Farmers’ opinions about demonstrated technologies in Dinajpur, Bangladesh, 2004
56
Farmer‐identified problems and technologies to be validated 57
Proposed activities for project sites managed by CIMMYT in 2005. 61
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The IFAD‐supported project entitled “Accelerating Technology Adoption to Improve Rural Livelihoods in the Rainfed Eastern Gangetic Plains” was launched in September 2003. The goal of the project is to contribute to poverty reduction through a sustainable increase in the productivity and conservation of resources, and through diversification of the rice‐based cropping systems in the rainfed environments in the Indo‐Gangetic Plains. The objectives of the project are (1) to identify policy and institutional changes that enable community‐level participatory research and enhanced uptake of sustainable agricultural technologies for improving farmers’ livelihoods, (2) to demonstrate and verify at the community level promising sustainable agricultural technologies and promote their accelerated adoption, and (3) to formulate and recommend policies and strategies for accelerating the adoption of validated income‐enhancing and resource‐conserving technologies in similar rainfed environments of the eastern Gangetic plains. The project is jointly managed by IRRI, CIMMYT, and ICRAF, with technical inputs from ICRISAT.
Participatory rural assessment, key informant surveys, focus‐group discussions, and participatory needs and opportunity assessment (PNOA) techniques were used to select a few best‐bet star technologies suitable to different agroecological and climatic conditions. Benchmark information was gathered through sample household baseline surveys at all sites. Various technologies are being studied at each of the sites based on the PNOA and matching of the technologies with farmers’ needs. At two locations, technologies were specifically targeted for women farmers to diversify household income.
The community participatory approach involving various stakeholders from early on is facilitating adoption of most of the technologies at an accelerated speed. Handing over of ownership through community‐level decision‐making and allowing communities or groups to decide who would participate in the validation experiments of the selected technologies were important aspects of the approach. Sharing of experiences among experienced farmers and the use of experienced farmers in training fellow farmers were found very useful. Training of extension workers and farmers was also found to be critical in effective scaling up of technologies. A large number of training courses were organized at different sites.
Support from policymakers was of equal importance. Exposing the performance of the technologies at the farmers’ level proactively to the policymakers was essential to win their support. This resulted in active support from ministers and senior policymakers in Bangladesh and West Bengal, India, to finance the scaling up of improved crop establishment methods using a plastic drum seeder adapted in Vietnam (from a technology originally developed at IRRI) and the leaf color chart for reducing the use of nitrogen fertilizer.
In Dinajpur, Bangladesh, direct seeding of rice, various soil and nutrient management technologies such as liming for amendment of acidic soils, solarized seedbeds, and leaf color charts (LCC) are being introduced. In the rabi season, a new wheat variety was introduced as well as the use of a power‐tiller‐operated seeder, zero‐till drill, and bed planter for wheat sowing.
In Chuadanga, Bangladesh, one new rice genotype (BR6110‐10‐1‐2) than can potentially replace the old BR11 in the wet season and cost‐saving technologies such as direct wet‐
2
seeding using a plastic drum seeder and the LCC for real‐time N management were identified to be potential technologies in the region. Nationwide scaling‐up of the plastic drum seeder in Bangladesh is being undertaken with the help of the media, the Department of Agricultural Extension, different NGOs, and private‐sector companies interested in domestic production and/or importation of the drum seeder from Vietnam.
In Patna, Bihar, a new rice variety was introduced and zero‐till direct‐seeded rice with chemical weed control, Sesbania to supplement N, and the LCC for real‐time N management were used in the kharif season. In the rabi season, the zero‐till drill and rotary‐disc seed drill were used to sow the wheat crop, and the economic viability of crop diversification through the introduction of the maize + potato cropping system was examined.
In Mau, eastern Uttar Pradesh, zero‐till‐drill direct‐seeded rice was demonstrated in one project village. Training on LCC‐based N management was conducted and a new wheat variety tolerant of sodic soil was introduced in the rabi season with the use of a zero‐till machine.
In Assam, the following technologies were initiated: participatory varietal evaluation, a bio‐fertilizer‐based integrated plant nutrient supply (IPNS) system for boro rice, and integration of boro rice with deepwater (bao) rice. In a participatory varietal evaluation, boro rice varieties such as Jyotiprasad, Kanaklata, and Joymoti were evaluated.
In North Bihar, activities being scaled up were timely sowing of wheat in the rice‐wheat system through zero tillage using tactor‐drawn seed drills, the use of quality protein maize (QPM) varieties (Shaktiman 1 and Shaktiman 2) to improve maize + potato intercropping, and mushroom cultivation to provide opportunities for income diversification among women.
In Raipur, Chattisgarh, direct seeding in lines using a tractor‐drawn seed drill was identified to perform better than the beushening or biasi system. Crop establishment of medium‐duration chickpea in rice‐lathyrus or rice‐fallow was identified to increase cropping intensity under the lowland rice‐based cropping system.
In Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, sequence cropping of chickpea (KAK 2, Radehe)/toria (Baruna) after rice (Anjali) was evaluated to improve cropping intensity in bunded uplands. To improve farm income, use of a rice‐based two‐tier agroforestry system in rainfed uplands and paddy straw mushroom cultivation began.
In Cuttack, Orissa, activities begun during the wet season were the replacement of traditional low‐yielding varieties with improved rice varieties (Saral, Durga, and Gayatri) in the flood‐prone ecosystem. Varieties of green gram with resistance to yellow mosaic virus were also introduced to replace local green gram. As in Jharkhand and North Bihar, women farmers were trained on paddy straw mushroom cultivation for income generation.
In West Bengal, activities began such as the evaluation of improved varieties of kharif rice, potato, sesame, mungbean, lathyrus, lentil, sunflower, and green gram, the plastic drum seeder for direct seeding of rice in the boro season, and the LCC for real‐time N management of rice in the kharif and boro season.
Lastly, at Parwanipur in Nepal, technologies initiated were the introduction of mungbean, direct‐seeded rice, soil solarization for transplanted rice (TPR), new aromatic rice, and LCC‐based N management in the monsoon season. In the winter season, wheat establishment
3
using a furrow‐irrigated raised bed (FIRB), zero‐till drill, power‐tiller seed drill, and reduced tillage by animal‐drawn harrow (ADH) were the major activities initiated.
Across sites, initial results from the monsoon season were encouraging, whereas rabi crops are still in the field. Most of the technologies initiated in 2004 will be continued in 2005 but in a more focused manner.
4
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project background Background
Hundreds of millions of rural poor in Bangladesh, India, and Nepal derive their food security and livelihoods from the 25 million hectares of the Gangetic plains devoted to farming systems based mainly on rainfed rice. Previous research on these farming systems has identified and developed improved cultivars and agronomic practices useful to poor farmers in the study areas in eastern India and in similar agroecologies in the region. The key to their success has been conversion from a commodity‐based approach to a systems‐based one in which farmer participatory research generates location‐specific recommendations. IFAD supported these studies through TAGs 148 and 263, and they were conducted by a variety of research networks, combining international agricultural research centers (IARCs), national agricultural research and extension systems (NARES), nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), private enterprise, and farmer groups.
The IFAD‐supported project entitled Multi‐Stakeholder Program to Accelerate Technology Adoption to Improve Rural Livelihoods in the Rainfed Eastern Gangetic Plains (IFAD TAG 634) is being implemented at 12 sites in the eastern Gangetic plains in parts of Bangladesh, India, and Nepal to validate and transfer these technologies through large‐scale community‐based participatory research and development activities.
1.2 Goals, objectives, and outputs
The overall goal of the project is to reduce rural poverty by improving farmer livelihoods through sustainable gains in the productivity and diversity of rainfed environments in the eastern Gangetic plains.
The objectives of the project are
1) To identify policy and institutional changes that enable community‐level participatory research and enhanced uptake of sustainable agricultural technologies for improving farmers’ livelihoods.
2) To demonstrate and verify at the community level promising sustainable agricultural technologies and promote their accelerated adoption.
3) To formulate and recommend new policies and strategies for accelerating the adoption of sustainable agricultural technologies in similar rainfed environments of the eastern Gangetic plains.
The expected outputs from the project are
1) An environment for validation of technologies through community‐based decentralized farmer participatory research facilitated.
2) Farmersʹ demand for technologies at the systems level assessed for each site and a package of available technologies recommended for validation.
3) Uptake of improved technologies fast‐tracked. 4) Capacity of selected stakeholders in ICT‐based information management on
improved agricultural technologies enhanced.
5
1.3 Management of project activities
IRRI is responsible for overall implementation of the project. However, IRRI manages the project in partnership with CIMMYT, ICRAF, and ICRISAT, and site‐level activities are implemented in partnership with the NARES and NGOs in India, Bangladesh, and Nepal, using a community participatory research approach. The sites managed by CIMMYT are basically those in the rice‐wheat production system and the one in Manipur managed by ICRAF focuses on the agroforestry system. ICRISAT provides technical assistance to other centers and sites in planning and evaluation of the technologies related to pulses and oilseeds. CIMMYT has particular responsibility for the expected fourth output: “strengthening capacity of selected stakeholders in ICT‐based information management.” Table 1 and Figures 1‐3 provide a list of the sites. Table 1. List of project sites.
Site no.
Country Project site Production system Principal partner
Sites managed by CIMMYT 1 Bangladesh Dinajpur Rice‐wheat Wheat Research
Center (WRC), BARI, BRRI Rangpur Station, RDRS
2 Bihar, India Patna Rice‐wheat Council for Agricultural Research‐Research Complex for Eastern Region (ICAR‐RCER), Patna
3 Eastern Uttar Pradesh, India
Mau Rice‐wheat Narendra Deva University of Agriculture & Technology (NDUAT), Faizabad
4 Nepal Parwanipur Rice‐wheat Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), Kathmandu
Sites managed by IRRI 5 Chattisgarh,
India Raipur Rice‐fallow, rice‐
legumes Indira Gandhi Agricultural University
6 Jharkhand, India
Hazaribagh Rice‐fallow, rice‐legumes
CRURRS; Holy Cross
7 Chuadanga, Bangladesh
Chuadanga Rice‐rice, rice‐legumes/vegetables
BRRI, DAE, WAVE Foundation
8 North Bihar, India
Pusa Rice‐wheat Rajendra Agricultural University; KVK, Jhargram
9 West Bengal, India
Chinsurah, Narendrapur,
Rice‐rice, rice‐vegetables
Department of Agriculture,
6
Ranaghat, and Nadia
Chinsurah Rice Research Station, BCKV, NDZFDO, RKM Asrama
10 Assam, India Jorhat Rice‐rice Assam Agricultural University
11 Orissa, India Cuttack Rice‐pulses Central Rice Research Institute
Site managed by ICRAF 12 Manipur, India Manipur Agroforestry, rice‐
fallow Central Agricultural University, Manipur
Figure 1. Location of project sites in Bangladesh. Figure 2. Location of project sites in India.
7
Figure 3. Location of project sites in Nepal.
8
2. ACTIVITIES INITIATED IN 2004 2.1 Project start‐up
The project started through an inception and planning meeting held at New Delhi on 16‐17 February 2004. Senior research leaders and managers from the key sites, identified in the stakeholders meeting held in 2003, participated. This workshop reviewed the work plans and budgets of individual sites. It was agreed that the work plans would be finalized after a visit of social scientists to the project sites to assess farmer needs and match those with best‐bet technologies to address those needs using a participatory approach. The approach to farmer participatory research, opportunities for and constraints to technology validation and up‐scaling through farmer participatory experiments, and the method of monitoring the experiments and assessing impact were discussed at the workshop. It was decided to strengthen the skills of the social scientists on the use of participatory approaches.
2.2 Assessing farmers’ needs and matching needs with potential technologies
Social scientists play a vital role in achieving the project objectives. Their activities include (a) diagnosis of constraints, (b) evaluating the prototype technologies, (c) targeting the technologies, (d) accelerating diffusion, (e) monitoring and evaluation, and (f) assessing impact.
The project emphasized understanding the needs, preferences, and problems of farmers in improving their livelihood by increasing production and productivity from their limited land resources. Contributions of the social science component were recognized to provide the guidance in implementing project activities based on a problem‐solving community participatory approach. The site teams therefore conducted a participatory needs and opportunity assessment (PNOA) and developed a work plan to scale up star technologies based on the PNOA. Details of the methodology followed in conducting the PNOA are provided in the sections below.
Methodology used for PNOA
(a) IRRI‐managed sites
Process. A multidisciplinary team of scientists and local development partners (GOs and NGOs) was first formed, followed by a planning meeting. District‐level and village‐level information was collected from secondary sources (published and unpublished) to characterize the wide recommendation domains of the target environment. The team selected the research sites/villages through reconnaissance surveys. After selecting the villages, the team met with farmers and conducted a series of meetings to develop rapport and mutual trust and to explain the objectives of the project, planned activities, roles, responsibilities, and expectations of farmers and team members. Social scientists and biological scientists participated in a “hands‐on” training workshop on the PNOA to better identify farmers’ needs and identify prototype technologies for validation at the selected research sites/villages. A guideline on how to do the PNOA was developed at IRRI. In preparation for the PNOA, the team conducted planning meetings. A focus‐group meeting with 10–15 farmers (men and women) representing different socioeconomic groups was held to conduct the PNOA. The participatory research tools used to collect socioeconomic and biophysical characteristics and resources of the farming households were the village transect, resource mapping, seasonal calendar, crop management and production flowchart,
9
preference/matrix ranking, changing trend analysis, gender analysis, Venn diagrams, pie charts, mobility map, and triangulation/validations. The team used problem prioritization/ranking and causal diagrams in identifying farmers’ needs and matching prioritized problems with two to three prototype interventions or “star” technologies.
After conducting the PNOA, social scientists came to IRRI to analyze and write reports on the PNOA in the Training Center. This workshop provided the NARES with analytical skills as well as writing skills. Many of the participants who do not have direct access to desktop computers learned for the first time how to make their own Power Point presentations. Moreover, the participants were trained on how to improve the quality of their oral presentations.
Results of PNOA: Socioeconomic characteristics of farmers
In general, the majority of the farming households are resource‐poor owner‐cultivators, with small and marginal landholdings (less than 1 hectare) that are highly fragmented. An average farm consists of a number of parcels with heterogeneous soils and topography (lowland, medium land, upland or highland). A high proportion of the farming households belong to the lower social class (scheduled tribes, backward castes, scheduled castes), with limited access to resources (seeds of improved varieties and new knowledge on crop resource management). A majority of the adult male members of the farming households had schooling only through the primary level. A majority of the women, particularly from the lower castes, are illiterate. The better educated, including high‐school drop‐outs, are mainly engaged in rural nonfarm activities.
Farming households are engaged in crop diversification to spread risks in farming. Aside from rice, they grow wheat, wheat + mustard, oilseeds, pulses, sugarcane, and other fodder crops. In areas that suffer from submergence and floods, farmers grow vegetables as an alternative crop on the riverside. Although a high proportion of farmers grow improved rice varieties, few farmers still grow traditional rice varieties that withstand abiotic stresses such as drought, floods, and submergence much better than modern varieties.
Farming households rely heavily on family labor. Land preparation, applying of chemicals (fertilizer, pesticide), broadcasting/direct seeding, and machine threshing are tasks exclusively done by male family members. On the other hand, pulling of seedlings from seedbeds, transplanting, weeding, and postharvest activities are primarily done by female members. Men and women share in harvesting and threshing paddy. In general, women from the lower castes provide labor in farm activities, particularly in rice production and postharvest activities. They also participate in making decisions related to farming. In contrast, women from the upper castes are not engaged in farm activities.
Crop‐livestock integration is integral at almost all of the sites. Crop by‐products are important sources of feed for livestock, whereas animal by‐products are used mostly as fuel (such as dried cow‐dung cakes) for the household and in a few cases as organic fertilizer for the soil. Thus, farmers rely not only on rice but also on nonrice, livestock, and agroforestry. The findings suggest that a systems approach rather than a component technology approach (rice only or wheat only) should be used in improving the livelihood of farming households.
10
(b) CIMMYT‐managed sites
Teams of professionals including agricultural economists, agronomists, agricultural engineers, and related field experts were formed in May 2004 to implement the project smoothly at each of the four sites. Those teams of professionals first identified potential sites with the help of officials in local agricultural extension offices of the government. Reconnaissance visits were made to the potential sites to identify the farmer types, crops and cropping patterns, and level of adoption of modern technologies in the area. Based on the findings, two to three villages, among the potential sites, were selected for project implementation such that the majority of the selected community consisted of poor farmers. Appendix 1 presents a summary of activities carried out at each site.
Once the project villages were identified, a meeting of farmers was organized for rapport building. Objectives of the project, tentative timing, and the possible role of farmers were explained and their feedback sought during the meeting. A detailed participatory rural appraisal was conducted to understand the socioeconomic and biophysical characteristics of the farmers. To maintain a database for future reference, village‐level baseline data were collected through key informant surveys (KISs).
2.3 Benchmark database
It is important to understand the socioeconomic, cultural, and environmental factors that influence the varietal diversity, cultivation practices (including the use of resource‐conserving technologies), productivity, and long‐term sustainability of different crop production systems in the project areas. Impact will be evaluated to examine to what extent the project has been able to achieve its stated objectives at the end of project implementation. Therefore, we need to establish a sound benchmark database for use in evaluating the impact of the project intervention in the future. The present survey work will fulfill both of the above objectives.
2.3.1 Approach and methodology for establishing the benchmark database
A comprehensive list of farmers in the project village was first prepared. Another list was prepared by including the farmers that are already cooperating with the project. Then, a third list included all the farmers in the village minus the farmers that are cooperating with the project. A sample of 10 farmers each from the second and third list was selected using the stratified random technique for interviews to establish benchmark data sets.
To keep track of the changes made by project efforts and compare them with the without‐project scenario, a control village was selected for each of the sites. Selection of a village as a control village was based on the socioeconomic and biophysical similarity of the village with that of the project village. A list of all the farmers in the control village was prepared and 10 farmers were selected from the list for interview using the stratified random sampling technique. Village‐level baseline data for the control villages were collected using the same tools as for the project village. Box 1 summarizes the sampling process.
11
The selected sample farmers were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. The head of the selected household was interviewed as far as possible. In some cases in which the household head was not available for an interview, the next most senior member of the household was interviewed. Prior arrangement with the concerned person was made for the time and date of interview to minimize time lost for the person in terms of his departure from his regular work for an interview.
2.3.2 Data collection tools
Two sets of questionnaires were used to collect household data. The first one was for details of household characteristics including land and livestock holdings, crop production, income, expenditures, debt, and share of each member in household work and decision‐making. One questionnaire was completed per sample household. The second set was for collecting costs of production (COP) data. Information on COP was collected from all of the sample farmers plus others if some of the major crops/ technologies/practices in the village were not covered among the sample farmers.
As each farmer cultivates more than one crop, it was not possible to collect COP for each crop from every sample farmer. Therefore, we collected COP for one crop from each farmer. The COP were collected for a plot for which the farmer could remember the inputs and outputs. Doing so, however, we made sure that COP for all of the crops were collected within each group of samples. Conversion factors from local to standard units were gathered through interaction with key informants in the villages.
Box 1. Sampling process for benchmark data 1. Survey sites
1.2 Project villages: villages where we are working. 1.3 Control: Select a village that has similar socioeconomic and
biophysical conditions and is also not very far from the project village. 2. Sampling frame
2.1 For project villages List 1 Prepare a complete list of households in the project village. List 2 Prepare a list of households that are participating in the project
(in the project village). List 3 Remove households in list 2 from list 1 and you have a third list.
2.2 For control villages List 4 Prepare a complete list of households in the control village.
3. Sample size 3.1 Select 10 households using the stratified random sampling technique
from list 2 × number of villages = 3.2 Select 10 households using the stratified random sampling technique
from list 3 × number of villages = 3.3 Select 10 households using the stratified random sampling technique
from list 4 × number of villages =
12
2.4 Technology validation and scaling‐up
The technology validation–related activities varied per site and are presented by site. Across sites, initial results from the monsoon season were encouraging, whereas rabi (winter) crops were still in the field at the time of this reporting.
2.4.1 Methodological approach in fast‐tracking technology adoption
A community participatory approach to research (CPAR) was used in validating and scaling up the technologies to facilitate adoption. CPAR is built on the guiding principle that an active partnership with farming communities that transforms ownership of technology development and transfer can effectively facilitate and foster reaching out to a larger number of farmers faster in a cost‐effective way (Box 2). One of the fundamental considerations in CPAR was that research and extension should have a positive attitude toward farmers since the latter possess a reservoir of technical knowledge about their circumstances, and have skills in experimenting. The combination of knowledge and skills of farmers and researchers was expected to produce a synergistic effect on technology development and transfer.
Box 2. Important principles and assumptions in the community participatory approach to research
Farmers make decisions usually based on their experiences from testing the
technologies in a way they can manage them. Technologies must solve one or more of farmers’ problems. Effective and active partnership to establish a community-driven approach with
researchers and other stakeholders requires a decision-making role of the communities and other stakeholders.
A positive attitude toward, and respect for, the farmers’ knowledge, skills, and capabilities enhances the establishment of active partnership.
Existence of a social vision is essential to understand technologies in a broader context.
Developing a sense of ownership at the community level facilitates decision-making.
Strengthening of local capacities to innovate and manage innovations fosters technology generation and transfer.
Involving multiple stakeholders, building consensus among stakeholders, and forging strategic alliances are essential prerequisites in participatory research.
A sense of accountability to farming communities drives researchers in fulfilling commitments.
Invest in social capital—create a common space among stakeholders. Transparency about interests helps in attaining a convergence of interests. Like any other process, the participatory approach needs to be managed effectively
at all levels. Start small and build on success.
The identification of willing participants to try new technologies, evaluate, adapt, and adopt through community or cohesive group meetings transfers ownership to the community or group of farmers.
13
The other important issue was deciding on who participates. The methodology emphasized that, instead of the traditional way of researchers and extension officials selecting farmers, willing farmers were identified through community or group meetings. The identification of participating farmers through group or community meetings essentially involved the group or community in evaluating the technology as the testing progressed. A built‐in community‐led monitoring and evaluation process was established.
Good understanding of the objectives and principles of the approach and of various tools and methods helps manage CPAR well. The approach was flexible in allowing innovation of new tools and methods. A step‐by‐step guideline was prepared for use by the NARES partners (Appendix 1‐3).
Where applied properly, CPAR facilitated a community role in testing technologies together and evaluating them using the community’s own criteria, which led to better decision‐making and faster adoption. This facilitated, at the early stages of development, the identification of policy, market, and other support that would be needed for adoption. Transition from research to extension for technology transfer also became easier. CPAR facilitated the creation of a visible effect on farmers, extension workers, policymakers, and donors.
2.4.2 Raipur, Chattisgarh, India
About 74% of the rice area in the state of Chattisgarh in India is rainfed and 83% is direct‐seeded. Rice is the main crop, which can be affected by drought at any stage of the crop’s life cycle. For a direct‐seeded crop, farmers practice beushening (or biasi) to control weeds. But beushening requires plenty of rainfall, which is uncertain in the region, to have impounded water in the rice fields. Yield is therefore low (<1 t/ha) and even this low yield is not stable due to uncertainty associated with rainfall. Widespread poverty exists and many households suffer from food insecurity in spite of a comparatively larger farm size than other sites covered by this project. Increasing rice yield and income from the rice‐based cropping system on a sustainable basis is the main challenge. Crop intensification and diversification with appropriate crop management options were found to be practical options. Line sowing of the rice crop was found to be better than the traditional biasi as it facilitates weed control.
Activity 1: Better rice crop establishment using seed drills to reduce the risk of drought in rice production
Indira Gandhi Agricultural University (IGAU) at Raipur developed a tractor‐drawn seed drill to sow seeds in line instead of broadcasting (Figures 4 and 5). Line sowing would facilitate weeding and beushening would not be necessary. However, its adoption was poor because the seed drills were not available with the tractor owners in the villages, arrangements were lacking for small farmers to obtain services from the tractor owners who might also own the seed drills, farmers lacked cash to pay for renting tractors, demand for services was inadequate, which did not make tractor owners interested in buying seed drills and thereby establishing a business to provide services, etc. Discussions with farmers also revealed that one or two farmers could not adopt the technology as the sowing time is earlier than with the traditional biasi, which makes the crop vulnerable to grazing by stray cattle. Collective action would be needed.
14
Instead of demonstrating the technology, the research team facilitated bringing the communities together and allowed them to establish the rules of business for tractor owners to procure seed drills, establish provision of service as a business, rental arrangements, etc. The research teams also trained the farmers willing to participate on the details of the technology. It was also discussed whether farmers using an early‐maturing variety could possibly grow a modern variety of chickpea under residual soil moisture, which would ensure a better crop. This would replace the traditional unprofitable practice of “utera”. The communities discussed this and most farmers decided to use one variety (MTU1010). This also helped them to harvest early and plant chickpea.
Originally, it was planned to have the farmers test on a block of 104 ha. As the level of confidence grew through repeated discussions within the communities and with the research team, farmers tested on about 1,040 ha in Akoli village and about 360 ha in Kapsada village. As they used the tractor‐drawn seed drill, some farmers even adapted the technology using their bullock‐drawn ploughs. Farmers from neighboring villages started making regular visits and have shown interest in adopting the technology. Participating farmers believed that this technology was allowing them to do weeding when it was needed and when labor was available as weeding was no more dependent on rain‐dependent beushening.
Figure 4. Biasi/beushening system.
15
Figure 5. Direct seeding in lines using a tractor.
MTU‐1010, Mahamaya, Swarna, and ISD‐1 were the major varieties used in the farmer participatory trial. Among these, Swarna performed best, having an average grain yield of about 4.65 t/ha. However, farmers preferred MTU‐1010 (3.75 t/ha) because it matures early (110 days), making it possible to escape drought at the terminal stage.
Average yield in Kapsada was 3.90 t/ha from line seeding and 3.56 t/ha from the local practice, beushening (Figure 6). On the other hand, average yield in Akoli village for the line‐sown crop was 3.95 t/ha and 3.57 from broadcast beushening. In general, direct‐seeded line sowing performed better than direct‐seeded broadcast beaushening. Average yield was higher by 10% for line sowing (3.93 t/ha) than for beushening (3.56 t/ha).
Figure 6. Grain yield comparison between direct‐seeded beushening and line sowing in Akoli and Kapsada, Chattisgarh, India.
Moreover, line sowing (Rs 10,893/ha) gave higher net returns than broadcast beushening (Rs 7,594/ha) in Kapsada. Similarly, line sowing (Rs 10,226/ha) in Akoli gave better net returns than beushening (Rs 7,041/ha) (Figures 7 and 8).
3.95 3.903.563.57
01020304050
Akoli Kapsada
t/ha
DS linesowingDSbeushening
3.95 3.903.563.57
01020304050
Akoli Kapsada
t/ha
DS linesowingDSbeushening
16
Figure 7. Comparison of net returns and total variable costs between direct‐seeded line sowing and direct‐seeded beushening in Akoli, Chattisgarh, India.
Figure 8. Comparison of net returns and total variable costs between direct‐seeded line sowing and direct‐seeded beushening in Kapsada, Chattisgarh, India. Activity 2: Increasing cropping intensity under the lowland rice‐based cropping system
Medium‐duration rice varieties during wet‐season and dry‐season crop (chickpea) establishment under conserved soil moisture using basal application of fertilizers could increase cropping intensity and productivity.
Some 67 farmers in Kapsada and 35 farmers in Akoli decided to test the improved varieties of chickpea against the traditional lathyrus crop under utera (Table 2). The improved chickpea varieties tested were Vaibhav, Vijay, and JG‐74 and recommended varieties were used for lathyrus (Pratik), lentil (JL), and mustard (Pusa Bold). These seeds were distributed among farmer participants and area covered by these varieties in Kapsada and Akoli was 15.01 ha and 6.94 ha, respectively. The adoption of chickpea on otherwise fallow land and on lands replacing lathyrus as an utera crop has increased cropping intensity by 7% in Akoli and 9% in Kapsada (Figure 9).
13,079 14,004
10,226 7,041
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Linesowing
Beushening
Rs/
ha Net returnsTotal variable costs
13,079 14,004
10,226 7,041
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Linesowing
Beushening
Rs/
ha Net returnsTotal variable costs
12,129 13,354
10,893 7,594
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Linesowing
Beushening
Rs/
ha Net returns
Total variable costs
12,129 13,354
10,893 7,594
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Linesowing
Beushening
Rs/
ha Net returns
Total variable costs
17
Table 2. Number of farmers and land area covered by improved varieties of post‐rice crops in Kapsada and Akoli, Chattisgarh, India.
Kapsada
Akoli
Figure 9. Cropping intensity in 2003 and 2004 in the lowland rice‐based cropping system in Akoli and Kapsada, Chattisgarh, India. To ensure the availability of seeds of preferred varieties next season, the concept of establishing a “seed village” was developed. Each of the communities established a five‐member seed committee. They agreed that each participating farmer would return the same amount of seed taken and the seed committee would maintain the seeds. They also agreed to establish a seed exchange mechanism so that the farmers of the same or neighboring villages would have access to the seeds of the new improved varieties.
174167
126135
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
Akoli Kapsada
Cro
ppin
g in
tens
ity (%
)
20032004
174167
126135
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
Akoli Kapsada
Cro
ppin
g in
tens
ity (%
)
20032004
Crop No. of farmers Area (ha)Chickpea (Vaibhav) 9 1.82
Chickpea (JG 74) 16 3.10
Chickpea (Vijay) 10 2.02Total 35 6.94
Crop No. of farmers Area (ha)Chickpea (Vaibhav) 9 1.82
Chickpea (JG 74) 16 3.10
Chickpea (Vijay) 10 2.02Total 35 6.94
Crop No. of farmers Area (ha)Chickpea (Vaibhav) 15 2.78
Chickpea (JG74) 25 4.93
Chickpea (Vijay) 10 2.00
Total chickpea 50 9.71
Lathyrus (Pratik) 10 2.00
Lentil (JL 3) 4 0.80
Mustard (Pusa Bold) 3 2.50
Total 67 15.01
Crop No. of farmers Area (ha)Chickpea (Vaibhav) 15 2.78
Chickpea (JG74) 25 4.93
Chickpea (Vijay) 10 2.00
Total chickpea 50 9.71
Lathyrus (Pratik) 10 2.00
Lentil (JL 3) 4 0.80
Mustard (Pusa Bold) 3 2.50
Total 67 15.01
18
The level of adoption and performance of these technologies have generated interest among senior managers, policymakers, farmers, and media.
2.4.3 West Bengal, India
In West Bengal, three subteams are working with farmers at three different sites. The Chinsurah Rice Research Station is working in Hooghly District to improve the productivity of the existing cropping systems under intensive areas where rice and potatoes are grown. Rama Krishna Mission Ashrama is working in South 24 Parganas District where rice and pulse crops (relay cropping) are grown. Bidhan Chandra Agricultural University (BCKV), in partnership with an NGO (Nadia Zilla Farmers Development Organization), is working in rice and vegetable‐based intensive areas.
a. Hooghly district
At this site, several technologies are being tested by three communities of farmers to improve the productivity and profitability of the following cropping systems (Tables 3 and 4): Table 3. Targeted cropping systems and number of participating farmers in Ruprajpur, 2004.
Cropping pattern Farmers involved Kharif rice‐boro rice 19 Kharif rice‐potato‐Dt. boro rice 12 Kharif rice‐potato (processing)‐mung/kalai 11 Kharif rice‐potato (short duration)‐sesame 6 Total of participating farmers 48
Kharif rice (rainfed –boro rice (irrigated) cropping system
Kharif rice varieties Sashi and IET15848 were compared with the local check variety, Swarna, in the rice‐rice cropping pattern. The average yield of Sashi (4.35 t/ha) and IET15848 (4.72 t/ha) was comparable with that of Swarna (4.58 t/ha). However, as grain and straw qualities of the two introduced varieties were found superior to Swarna, they fetched a higher market price and therefore farmers like these varieties.
During the kharif season, a plastic drum seeder was introduced for direct seeding of rice to reduce costs and facilitate early harvesting. Initial farmer responses were not very favorable. However, seeing the successes with some of the participating farmers, more farmers are trying the drum seeder during the boro rice season.
The leaf color chart (LCC) has also been introduced to manage nitrogen fertilizer. Farmers are still assessing the technology during the boro rice season.
Rice‐potato‐rice/rice‐potato‐sesame/rice‐potato‐mung/kalai
In this intensive system, late harvest of kharif rice delays planting of potato, the main cash crop of the area. The performance of shorter‐duration rice varieties PNR519 and Triguna
19
was compared with that of the local check variety, Swarna, in the three cropping systems. PNR519 (4.34 t/ha) produced grain yield comparable with that of Swarna (4.40 t/ha) and yield of Triguna was lower (3.62 t/ha). However, growth duration was shorter for PNR519 (115–120 days) and Triguna (125–130 days) than for Swarna (145 days), which allowed early establishment of potato, the second crop. Also, grain quality and disease tolerance were better than those of Swarna. Table 4. Yield of improved rice varieties in different cropping patterns. Cropping pattern Rice varieties Yield range (t/ha) Average yield (t/ha)
Rice‐boro rice Sashi 3.2–5.6 4.35 +/‐ 0.60
IET 15848 4.0–5.3 4.72 +/‐ 0.42
Swarna 3.8–5.8 4.58 +/‐ 0.71
Rice‐potato‐Dt. boro rice PNR 519 3.2–5.4 4.34 +/‐ 0.83
Triguna 2.7–4.5 3.62 +/‐ 0.55
Swarna 3.8–5.0 4.40 +/‐ 0.60
Rice‐potato‐sesame PNR 519 3.0–3.6 3.35 +/‐ 0.23
Swarna 3.8–5.0 4.40 +/‐ 0.60
Rice‐potato (processing)‐mung PNR 519 2.6–4.9 3.80 +/‐ 0.86
Swarna 3.5–4.8 4.11 +/‐ 0.55 Higher net returns were obtained from PNR519 (Rs 13,220/ha), Triguna (Rs 13,220/ha), Sashi (Rs 17,670/ha), and IET15848 (Rs 16,170/ha) than from the local variety, Swarna (Rs 10,770/ha). This is because of the varieties’ tolerance of pests and diseases and the good‐quality grains they produce.
2.4.4 Central Rainfed Upland Rice Research Station, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, India
The site is characterized by low and erratic rainfall; consequently, the crop suffers from drought at various stages of growth. Farmers practice beushening to control weeds in direct‐seeded crops. Farmers mainly grow one rice crop. The main objectives of the site work are
• To increase cropping intensity through diversification and to ensure sustainable crop production;
• To increase family income through diversification of income opportunities using the available crop by‐products.
Community participatory validation of technologies started in three villages:
a. Kuchu, Ranchi District
b. Gidhore, Chatra District
c. Amnari, Hazaribag District
Results:
Activity 1: Improving cropping intensity of bunded uplands through sequence cropping (lentil/Bengal gram/safflower/toria)
20
In a farmer participatory trial for chickpea in Giddhore, a sequence crop of gram was sown after harvesting of a direct‐seeded crop of Anjali. On the other hand, in Amnari, a sequence crop was sown after harvesting of a transplanted rice crop. Among the different varieties tried in this activity, farmers preferred ICCV‐2 and KAK‐2 because of their earliness (Table 5). Yield and other yield attributes will be recorded at crop maturity. Table 5. Farmer evaluation of pigeonpea varieties tested in Hazaribagh during 2004.
Village Seeding date
Area (ha)
Variety No. of farmers
Farmers preference
Giddhore (Chatra)
30 Oct. 1.3 Radhe, ICCV, JG11, JGK1, ICC37, KAK2, and ICCV 10 (farmers’ participatory varietal trial)
6 ICCV‐2 and KAK ‐2 (because of their earliness)
Kucchu (Ranchi)
14 Nov. 0.65 Radhe 2 We hope that next year more farmers will adopt.
Amnari (Hazaribag)
11 Nov. 0.65 Radhe, ICCV, JG11, JGK1, ICC37, KAK2, and ICCV 10 (farmers’ participatory varietal trial )
3 ICCV‐2 and KAK‐2
Among the 15 lines of pigeonpea received from ICRISAT, ICPL85063, ICPL99044, and ICPL87119 were found suitable for rainfed situations with less wilt and sterility mosaic infection. In the wet season of 2004, 25 wilt‐ and sterility‐mosaic‐resistant and susceptible lines from ICRISAT were screened. Results revealed that ICP7870, ICP12759, ICP12749, and ICPL93179 were wilt‐ and sterility‐mosaic‐resistant and suitable for rainfed situations in Jharkhand.
Activity 2: Use of paddy straw for oyster mushroom cultivation
Training for paddy straw mushroom cultivation was given to women’s groups in the three villages. Farmers in Giddhore were able to harvest 2 kg of mushroom using 6 kg of paddy straw.
Activity 3: Improving farm income through a rice‐based three‐tier agroforestry system in rainfed uplands
Cultivable wasteland in Jharkhand can be used productively by growing fruit crops/timber along with rice and other crops following the three‐tier system of agroforestry. Three hundred plants of mango or aowla, the main crop, were planted in 1 × 1 × 1‐m pits while 200 plants of lemon, the companion crop, were planted in 60 × 60 × 60‐cm pits. Planting time for the main and companion crops was the first week of August. Plants were healthy and growing fast but, because of the delayed planting of mango/lemon, rice could not be planted this year.
21
2.4.5 Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack, Orissa, India
Rice production at this site is low because of submergence and drought, whose occurrence is very uncertain. The cropping intensity of the rainfed rice‐based system is also low. The site team therefore tried to validate technologies for submergence‐prone rainfed lowland rice and rice‐based cropping systems so that significant improvement in farm productivity, sustainability, and economic well‐being of the farmers, especially providing a good‐quality diet to the people, could be brought about. This included offering technologies that could generate additional income by using rice by‐products.
Project activities have begun with three communities at Paikarapur, Bidyadharpur, and Brahmanbasta in Cuttack District.
Results:
Intervention I: Replacement of traditional low‐yielding varieties with improved varieties (Saral/Durga/Gayatri) in the flood‐prone ecosystem
This activity was implemented during the wet season of 2004 to address the problem of low productivity of rice.
Gayatri is an improved variety for the intermediate lowland (up to 50 cm of flooding) with a yield potential of up to 6 t/ha. Growth duration is about 155 days and the variety is tolerant of bacterial leaf blight (BLB) and blast. Based on a farmer participatory on‐farm trial, the use of Gayatri (4.55 t/ha) resulted in an increase in grain yield of about 110%, or 2.38 t/ha, and additional returns of Rs 10,348/ha (Table 6).
Durga is an improved photosensitive variety for the semideep, waterlogged ecosystem. It has long straw and kneeing capacity and responds to a low level of N. Also, Durga is tolerant of BLB, rice tungro virus (RTV), blast, and brown planthopper (BPH) and is suitable for late sowing with aged seedlings of 50–60 days. Yield potential is about 4.5 t/ha. Based on a farm trial, grain yield and net returns increased by about 103%, or 1.95 t/ha, and Rs 8,395/ha, respectively, using this improved variety (3.85 t/ha).
Sarala is a photosensitive variety for the intermediate and semideep land type. It is resistant to lodging and stagnant flooding and tolerant of BLB, RTV, blast, and BPH. It has fine grains and its yield potential is about 4 t/ha. On‐farm trials revealed that Sarala (3.25 t/ha) increased grain yield by about 76%, or 1.4 t/ha, and net returns by Rs 5,350/ha.
Table 6. Comparison of yields and returns between farmers’ rice varieties and improved varieties.
Technical observations Economic indicators Yield (t/ha) Yield increase
(%)
Treatments
Grain Straw Grain Straw
Cost of interven‐tion (Rs/ha)
Cost of cultiva‐tion (Rs/ha)
Gross returns (Rs/ha)
Net returns (Rs/ha)
B‐C ratio
Local variety 2.17 5.85 – – – 10,000 12,822 2,822 1.28 Gayatri 4.55 6.55 109.7 11.97 2,000 12,000 25,170 13,170 2.10
Local variety 1.90 5.50 – – – 10,000 11,340 1,340 1.13 Durga 3.85 7.00 102.6 27.27 2,000 12,000 21,735 9,735 1.81
22
Local variety 1.85 4.85 ‐ ‐ ‐ 10000 10890 890 1.09 Sarala 3.25 5.55 75.68 14.43 2000 12000 18240 6240 1.52 Farmers preferred to cultivate these varieties in the rainfed lowland because they give both better yields and good‐quality straw. Intervention 2: Increasing the productivity of pulses (green gram) after rice through YMV‐resistant varieties
The farmers tried green gram variety PDM 11, whose seeds were treated with carbendazim to protect them from the yellow mosaic virus (YMV). Compared with the local green gram varieties, PDM 11 increased grain yield by 40–50%.
Intervention 3: Introduction of paddy straw mushroom for income generation
About 60 farm women were trained from self‐help groups in Paikarapur and Brahmanabasta on cultivating paddy straw mushroom. The production of mushroom was very encouraging (Figure 10). From each bed, participants were able to produce 1.5–3.0 kg of mushroom and generate income of about Rs 75–150.
A training manual on mushroom cultivation in Oriya has been produced.
Figure 10. Women farmers harvesting mushrooms, Cuttack, 2004.
23
2.4.6 Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam, India
Flash flood, terminal drought, and poor socioeconomic conditions of farmers are major concerns in improving production and profitability from rice production. Work began with three farming communities at Disangmukh, Ganakbari, and Joraguri.
Results:
Activity 1: Community participatory testing of late Sali rice varieties
A community participatory testing of late Sali rice varieties Luit and Kopilee began in Disangmukh. However, the crops were totally damaged by flood.
Activity 2: Testing of boro rice varieties
Community participatory testing of boro rice varieties Joymati, Jyotiprasad, and Konaklata was done on 4 ha of land in Disangmukh. Varietal performance under three different treatments (biofertilizer‐based integrated nutrient management), recommended fertilizer dose and the local practice) was compared. Training on boro rice production technology was given to farmer participants. The same trial was also carried out in Ganakabari and Joraguri.
2.4.7 Bangladesh: Chuadanga site
A vast land area of the rainfed eastern Gangetic floodplains is situated in Bangladesh. Targeting the improvement of rural livelihoods, researchers have been working on developing technology suitable for the region. Researchers identified a large number of rice‐based technologies developed by agricultural research organizations ready for dissemination and adoption at the farm level. Accelerated adoption of the potential technologies has received high priority nationally.
Improved rice varieties or genotypes of BR6110‐10‐1‐2 and BR4828‐54‐4‐1‐4‐9 and low‐cost resource‐conserving technologies such as direct wet‐seeding using a plastic drum seeder and leaf color chart for real‐time N management were identified as potential technologies in the region. Some 128 farmers in four villages in Chuadanga and two villages in Pabna districts participated in testing the technologies fully under their management (Table 7).
Table 7. Number of participating farmers to validate the technology.
Village 1 Village 2 Village 3 Village 4 Village 5 Village 6 Items Karpashdanga Modna Shakharia Kultola Goeshpur Sreepur
Total
Technology Variety 9 8 7 8 –
– 32
DWS 9 9 6 16 3 3 46 LCC 10 10 10 20 – – 50
Upazilla Damurhuda Damurhud
a Jibon nagar Jibon nagarAtaikula/ Sadar
Sujanagar
District Chuadanga Chuadanga Chuadanga Chuadanga Pabna Pabna
24
Direct wet‐seeding using a plastic drum seeder
Direct wet‐seeding (DWS) using the plastic drum seeder was offered to groups of farmers in five villages to try alongside traditional transplanting (TP). Owners of irrigation equipment (shallow tube wells) were entry points in organizing the farmer groups.
About 40 kg/ha of BR6110‐10‐1‐2 were sown using a plastic drum seeder. The seeding date was 15‐30 July 2004. Results of the experiment showed that grain yield was 34.6% higher in DWS (4.98 t/ha) than in TP (3.70 t/ha) during the transplanted aman season of 2004. In addition, total variable cost was lower by 10% in DWS than in TP (Table 8). Table 8. Grain yield, costs, and returns from DWS and TP (T. aman, 2004) rice.
Item DWS TP Grain yield (t/ha) 4.98 3.7 Gross returns (Tk/ha) 44,174 33,006 Total variable costs (Tk/ha) 24,380 27,088 Gross margin (Tk/ha) 19,793 5,918 Benefit‐cost ratio 1.81 1.21
The participating farmers evaluated the technology using their own criteria and identified the advantages and weaknesses of using a plastic drum seeder (Tables 9 and 10). As was expected, weed management was found to be a critical factor in adoption of the technology. Herbicide was found to be most useful in controlling weeds. However, the research team is encouraging farmers to use a rotary weeder because of the possible harmful effect of herbicide on the environment.
Table 9. Farmers’ perceptions of the advantages of direct wet‐seeded rice using a plastic
drum seeder.
Attributes No. of farmers % Less costly method 19 100 Less labor required 19 100 Less time required 19 100 Needs no seedbed 19 100 Needs no transplanting 19 100 Fewer seeds required 19 100 Early maturity/harvest 19 100 Higher yield 7 37
Early establishment may help escape submergence 5 25
25
Table 10. Farmers’ perceptions of the weaknesses of direct wet‐seeded rice using a plastic drum seeder.
Attributes No. of farmers % Excessive weeds 3 15 Rain disrupts line establishment 3 15 Difficult germination 2 11 Requires herbicides 1 5
The farmers learned that direct wet‐seeding using a plastic drum seeder, a cost‐effective technology, could give a more substantial increase in grain yield than transplanted rice. Farmers who would adopt the technology would be expected to earn an additional profit of Tk 13,000 (US$210) per ha. However, the DWS is not suitable for all situations and, during the wet season, care must be taken so that rain does not disrupt the newly seeded rice crop.
Farmers’ perceptions of BR6110 were also obtained. Farmers preferred BR6110 because of its high‐yielding characteristics and tolerance of insect pests (Table 11).
Table 11. Farmers’ perceptions of the identified prototype technologies, T. aman 2004.
Perception No. of farmers % Farmers’ perceptions of BR6110
High yield 10 52.6 Moderate yield 9 47.4 Low yield – Reason for preferring BR6110 High yield 9 47.4 No insects/disease 9 47.4
Scaling up of direct wet‐seeding using a plastic drum seeder in different parts of Bangladesh
Based on the previous experiences, direct wet‐seeding using the plastic drum seeder was scaled up through the Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE); NGOs, including RDRS, SOPAN, and WAVE; and the Regional Research Stations of BRRI. During the boro season, the technology was tested by farmer groups at 56 locations across the country. Seeing the successes irrespective of the locations for the boro crop (Tables 12 and 13), several rounds of discussion were organized at DAE headquarters to plan for a nationwide scaling up. Senior managers of DAE and potential entrepreneurs to manufacture and/or market the plastic drum seeder were also invited to join in the discussions. Policymakers (the Minister and State Minister of Agriculture, GOB) were exposed to the performance of the technology through field visits. The Ministry of Agriculture decided to fund the nationwide scaling up and provided the funds to do so. IRRI facilitated importation of 2,500 plastic drum seeders from Vietnam. The project facilitated training of about 265 DAE district‐level officials/crop production specialists, 404 upazilla officials, 2,357 field‐level block supervisors, and about
26
2,000 farmers on the use of the drum seeder. The project facilitated printing of a booklet on the drum seeder, posters, and brochures to help with the scaling up. The TV channels of Bangladesh, BTV and Channel i, were invited to join in the effort and these channels covered successes of the technology through repeated broadcasts. More than 4,000 farmers/farmer groups in 212 upazillas have been testing the technology during the 2004‐05 boro season. The results of the scaling up will be reported next year. Table 12. Performance of direct wet‐seeded boro rice using a plastic drum seeder in Bangladesh, 2004 (average of 56 locations).
Variety Method Yield (t/ha) Duration (days) BRRI dhan 28 DWS 6.0 (20%) 130 TP 5.02 141 BRRI dhan 29 DWS 7.14 (18%) 152 TP 6.03 168 BRRI dhan 36 DWS 6.51 (19%) 129 TP 5.46 141
Table 13. Economic analysis of direct‐seeded boro rice with a drum seeder (DSDR), 2004, in Bangladesh (average of 56 locations).
Indicators DSDR TP Difference (%) Cost of production (Tk/ha) 25,832 29,904 −13.16 Gross returns (Tk/ha) 42,265 39,472 7.98 Gross margin (Tk/ha) 16,792 9,567 75.52 Benefit‐cost ratio 1.65 1.32
During the aman season, RDRS, an NGO working in the northern part of Bangladesh, tried the technology with farmers and observed that the higher yield and early harvest could help farmers off‐set to a certain extent the negative effects of “Monga”—the food scarcity that leads to starvation before the aman harvest in mid‐October to November. They have also begun a large‐scale validation of the technology through farmer groups.
Farmer participatory workshop: integrate lessons learned from farmers in future planning
A farmer participatory workshop was organized in June 2004 at BRRI, Bangladesh, to learn lessons from the farmers who tried the technology during the boro season of 2003‐04 and to integrate the lessons in planning future activities. The farmers from each of the 56 locations shared their experiences and jointly summarized their experiences to identify the land type, soil type, crop varieties, etc., suitable for this technology. During the workshop, the first day was devoted entirely to listening to the farmers and facilitating the exchange of experiences. On the second day, researchers and extension officials also shared their experiences gained from on‐station and on‐farm trials. In the meeting, farmers were encouraged to innovate. A few of them suggested that they would try the technology under zero‐tillage conditions after the recession of floodwater from low‐lying areas. In fact, a few farmers have established
27
boro crops under zero‐tillage conditions in Pabna District. The results of this innovative experiment will be reported next year.
2.4.8 Pusa site in north Bihar, India
Work at this site started late for various reasons. The site has high rainfall during the wet season from July to September and drought during the rest of the year. Supplementary irrigation is often provided to rainfed crops. Landlessness is very high (about 55%) and agriculture is often influenced by the caste system. Rice‐maize + potato, vegetables‐maize + potato, and rice‐wheat are major cropping patterns in the area. Maize + potato is gaining popularity because of its high economic returns. Crop yields are generally low.
The project has begun activities to scale up (i) the timely sowing of wheat in the rice‐wheat system through zero tillage using tractor‐drawn seed drills, (ii) improving maize + potato intercropping through the use of quality protein maize (QPM) varieties Shaktiman 1 and Shaktiman 2, and (iii) providing an opportunity to diversify sources of income for marginal and landless farmers through production and marketing of mushrooms by rural women. These technologies were already validated earlier under the Rice‐Wheat Consortium, but the results are not available yet.
2.4.9 Manipur, India
The Manipur site at Kairembikhok Awang in the Saram Hill range of Thoubal District is in the partially hilly regions of eastern India. The rainfed upland hill agroecosystem with an altitude range of 800–1,000 m was targeted. The site receives about 1,500 mm of rainfall annually distributed mostly during the monsoon season. The soil is mostly lateritic with pH ranging from 5.0 to 6.0. Slash‐and‐burn jhum is the main system of cultivation, which degrades soil fertility and reduces land productivity. Growing population density is putting pressure on the jhum cycle, thereby reducing the fallow period. Crops suffer from drought during the dry season.
The site attempted to improve the productivity and profitability of the agro‐horti‐silvicultural system by integrating intercropping of suitable crop species with horticultural and silvicultural plants. The project has also begun activities to improve the rice‐wheat cropping system in the foothill areas. Rice is grown predominantly on a subsistence basis.
Pigeonpea, groundnut, and high‐yielding rice and wheat were tested with the agro‐horti‐silvicultural system (Box 3). Results (Table 14) showed that rice yielded about 4.1 ha–1. Pigeonpea and groundnut yields were encouraging. Farmers are willing to try the crops next season.
28
Table 14. Intercropping of pulses or oilseeds with fruit/tree crops and the rice-wheat cropping system during 2004. Site no. Crop details
Area (ha)
Production (kg)
Productivity (kg/ha)
Remarks
1 Pigeonpea var. DEB4101 1.80 1,200 665 2 Groundnut var. JL‐24 2.05 1,390 678 3 Rice (high‐yielding) 5.00 20,628 4,126
4 Wheat var. Kalyansana 4.63 – –
I. Rice yield is in terms of paddy II. Wheat is not yet harvested
Box 3. Agro-horti-silvicultural farming system introduced •Tree crops—1. Teak (Tectonia grandis)
2. Champa (Michelia champaka) 3. Wang (Gmelina arboria)
•Fruit crops—1.Citrus sp. (Citrus raticulata, C. aurantifolia, C. macrotera)
2. Pineapple (Ananus comosus) 3. Jackfruit (Autocarpus heterophyllus)
•Field Crops—1. Pigeonpea var. DEB 4101
2. Groundnut var. JL-24 3. Rice (high-yielding) var. Leimaphou, Sanaphou, Tamphaphou 4. Wheat (high-yielding) var. Kalyansona
29
2.5.9 Dinajpur‐Rangpur site, Bangladesh
A summary of all activities conducted in CIMMYT‐managed sites appears in Appendix 4.
(a) Direct seeding of rice
The introduction of wet direct seeding (DS) of rice by a drum seeder reduced sowing time and increased the grain yield of BR11 (by 16%) and BRRI dhan33 (by 15%) more than with the transplanting (TP) method of crop establishment in the aman season (Table 12). Moreover, wet DS rice with a drum seeder reduced growth duration by 9–10 days (7–8%) more than TP rice in the aman (monsoon) season. This reduced growth duration of high‐yielding LDV BR11 made room for the establishment of wheat within an optimum time in the rabi (dry) season. The highest productivity of BRRI dhan33 (40.7 kg/ha/day), followed by BR11 (39.9 kg/ha/day), was observed in wet DS rice with a drum seeder, which was 16% and 25% higher than with the TP method of crop establishment, respectively, in the aman (monsoon) season (Table 15). Table 15. Agronomic performance of T. aman rice under different practices at South Mominpur, Rangpur, 2004.
BR11 BRR dhan33 Parameters DS TP Increase (%)
due to DS DS TP Increase (%) due
to DS Grain yield (t/ha)
5.55 4.77 16.4 4.44 3.86 15.0
Panicles (no./m2)
442* 191 131.4 511** 168 204
Growth duration (days)
139 149 −6.7 109 118 −7.6
Productivity (kg/ha/day)
39.9 32.0 24.7 40.7 35.1 15.9
* Sowing at 7 days after incubation, seed rate 43 kg/ha. ** Sowing at 3 days after incubation, seed rate 74 kg/ha. (b) Introduction of promising new rice varieties
The introduction of BRRI dhan32 showed higher grain yield (4.27 t/ha) than that of the farmers’ varieties Swarna (3.10 t/ha) and Chalaki (2.33 t/ha). BR11 gave the highest grain yield (4.77 t/ha) in South Mominpur (Table 16). The data showed that the improved practice such as use of healthy seedlings (raised in solarized soil) in limed soils with balanced fertilizers increased grain yield of BR11, (4.77 t/ha), BRRI dhan32 (4.37 t/ha) than the existing farmers practice (Non solarized poor seedling, non‐lime plot, imbalanced fertilizer) with BR11 (2.5 t/ha), Swarna (3.1 t/ha), and Chalaki (2.33 t/ha) in the T. aman season.
30
Table 16. Comparative agronomic performance of T. aman rice in demonstration plots over existing farmers’ practice at South Mominpur, Bangladesh, 2004.1
BR11/Swarna BRRI dhan32/Local variety Improved practice
Farmers’ practice Increase (%) Improved practice
Farmers’ practice
Parameters
BR11 (f = 4)
BR11 (f = 7)
Swarna (f =1)
BR11 Swarna BRRI dhan32
Chalaki
In‐crease (%)
Grain yield (t/ha)
4.77 2.50 3.10 90.8 53.9 4.27 2.33 83.3
Panicles (no./m2)
191 – – – – 172 – –
Growth duration (days)
149 149 153 – – 136* 121 12.4
Productivity (kg/ha/day)
32.0 16.8 20.3 90.5 57.6 31.4 19.3 62.7
* Crop suffered from water stress at tillering. BRRI dhan33 was used for demonstration at Brahmanvita village covering 26 farmers’ plots in comparison with Swarna, BR11, and Pajam. BRRI dhan33 yielded higher (3.52 t/ha) than BR11 (2.7 t/ha), Swarna (3.14 t/ha), and Pajam (2.8 t/ha) (Table 14). The T. aman crop suffered from water stress at tillering. However, BRRI dhan33 increased grain yield 30.4% over BR11, 12% over Swarna, and 26% over Pajam under farmers’ management. The highest productivity (30.4 kg/ha/day) was found with the improved practice with BRRI dhan33, followed by Pajam (22.6 kg/ha/day), Swarna (20.3 kg/ha/day), and BR11 (17.9 kg/ha/day) (Table 17).
1 Tables 2 to 19 presented in this report are as reported by the NARES partners.
31
Table 17. Comparative agronomic performance of T. aman rice in demonstration plots versus the existing farmers’ practice at Brahmanvita, Birganj, Bangladesh, 2004.
Improved practice
Farmers’ practice Increase (%) Parameters
BR33 (f =26)
BR11 ( f = 8)
Swarna ( f = 9)
Pajam (f = 1)
BR11 ( f = 8)
Swarna ( f = 9)
Pajam ( f = 1)
Grain yield (t/ha)*
3.52 2.70 3.14 2.80 30.4 12 26
Growth duration (days)
116 151 155 124 ‐23 ‐25 ‐6
Productivity (kg/ha/day)
30.4 17.9 20.3 22.6 70 50 35
* Crop suffered from water stress after transplanting and at tillering. (c) Soil and nutrient management for rice
• Liming for soil amendment: Soils from three different depths were collected from the representative samples and soil pH was measured by a prototype pH meter. Based on the pH levels, lime at 0.50 and 1 t/ha at Rangpur and Dinajpur was applied, respectively, to reduce soil acidity. The lime was applied after the first ploughing in the T. aman (monsoon) season. Then, a second ploughing was done to properly mix the lime with soil.
• Soil solarization: A solarized seedbed (dry bed) was prepared in farmers’ fields for growing healthy seedlings of BRRI dhan33 at Brahmanvita and BR11, BRRI dhan 32, and 33 at Rangpur during July 2004. After 25 days of solarization, dry seeds of BR11, BRRI dhan32, and BRRI dhan33 were sown at 80 g/m2 on a dry bed. Solarized seedlings were more vigorous, taller, healthier, and more deeply green colored than farmers’ seedlings.
• LCC‐based nitrogen management: Urea was applied to T. aman fields based on LCC readings. The LCC suggested that only two topdressings were needed: one at 15 days after transplanting (DAT) and another at 25 DAT in Brahmanvita village, Dinajpur. Three topdressings were required for BRRI dhan32 and 33 and four for BR11 at South Mominpur, Rangpur. Each time, urea was applied at 55 kg/ha. Using the LCC saved about 107 kg/ha of urea at Brahmanvita and 52 kg/ha of urea at Mominpur compared to the recommended dose.
(d) Interactions with farmers, monsoon season 2004
Different formal and informal training programs were organized for the participating farmers to discuss different new technologies and management practices. Weekly discussions with participating farmers were held to help them overcome problems related to crop management. Input dealers (especially fertilizer and pesticide) and local NGO workers were also included in the farmers’ training on modern rice‐wheat production and other technologies such as the use of lime for soil amendment, use of the LCC for urea management for rice, use of boron to mitigate sterility problems of wheat, etc.
To disseminate the demonstrated technology among a large group of farmers, a field day was arranged in each village during the maturity stage of aman rice in October. About 200
32
farmers in each village attended and observed the performance of the new variety and the effect of other technologies such as liming and the LCC. All of the farmers reacted positively about the early T. aman variety and other technologies such as the LCC for urea management, liming for increasing soil fertility, and raising healthy seedlings through soil solarization. The other farmers (beyond demonstration plot owners) requested a supply of seeds of new T. aman varieties BRRI dhan 32 and 33, the LCC and training for LCC use, and information about soil solarization methods.
Farmers’ opinions on the technologies demonstrated in the project villages at Dinajpur are presented in Appendix 5.
(e) Rabi (winter 2004‐05) technologies
The technologies selected for adoption and dissemination for wheat at Dinajpur are (i) introduction and dissemination of high‐yielding wheat variety Shatabdi and (ii) introduction of minimum‐tillage wheat cultivation through the power tiller‐operated seeder (PTOS) and wheat cultivation on a bed.
One hundred percent of the area in Brahmanvita village blocks and 50% of the area in Mominpur blocks were sown by the PTOS as a minimum‐tillage practice. The PTOS performed three functions at a time in one pass: plowing, sowing seeds in a line, and leveling the soil.
Fifty percent of the area in south Mominpur blocks was sown on a bed (2 lines per 20 cm) by a power tiller attached to a bed planter on 22 November 2004. Water was supplied from a shallow tube well during the crown root initiation stage at 17 DAS and again at 55–60 DAS using a plastic hose pipe.
2.4.11 Patna site, Bihar, India
(a) Zero‐till direct‐seeded rice
One of the technologies taken to farmers’ fields at the Patna site in kharif 2004 was zero‐till direct‐seeded rice (ZTDSR) with component technologies. Though 38 farmers agreed to cooperate with the center for technology validation, only 9 finally did (Table 18). Others did not adopt or were forced to transplant their field because of delayed sowing and/or unfavorable climate.
The yield and input data presented in Table 19 provide some crucial information. It is understood that farmers have saved costs in terms of seedbed preparation, uprooting, transportation, main field preparation, and transplanting but the detailed data are yet to be analyzed.
33
Table 18. Number of farmers who agreed to adopt and actually adopted direct‐seeded zero‐till rice and puddling of ZT rice fields during kharif 2004 at Patna, India.
Agreed to adopt ZT
direct‐seeded rice
Actual adoption of ZT direct‐seeded rice
Puddling of ZT rice fields
Final adoption of ZT direct‐seeded
rice
Site no.
Village
No. of farmers
Area (ha)
No. of farmers
Area (ha)
No. of farmers
Area (ha)
No. of farmers
Area (ha)
1. Taret 19 4.23 9 3.17 7 1.13 2 2.11 2. Naharpura 8 1.98 7 1.53 4 0.81 3 1.18 3. Azad
Nagar 11 2.11 9 1.52 5 0.46 4 0.79
Table 19. Details of zero‐till direct‐seeded rice during kharif 2004 at Patna, India.
Fertilizer dose (in kg/ha)
Name of herbicide
Grain yield (t/ha)
Site no.
Farmer’s name Area (ha)
Variety
N P K Taret 1. Shailesh Kumar 0.225 MTU 7029,
Rajendra 1 86.4 38.4 ‐ Pretilachlor 4.2
2. Sudarshanacharya 1.15 Rajendra 1, BPT 5204, Sita
101.6 25.6 36.8 Pendimethalin 5.9
3. Control MTU 7029 88 36.8 – 5.1 Naharpura 1. Ram Pravesh 0.125 MTU 7029 57.5 29.4 12.0 5.8 2. Satyendra Singh 0.125 MTU 7029 57.5 29.4 12.0 5.4 3. Chhote Sharma 0.10 MTU 7029 55.2 23.9 12.0 5.6 Azadnagar 1. Arun Kumar 0.206 Rajendra 1 152.4 36.8 12 Pendimethalin,
pretilachlor 4.3
2. Ram Chandra 0.062 MTU 7029 49.3 46.0 12 Pendimethalin Crop failed
3. Sudheshwar Pd. 0.044 MTU 7029 143.2 36.8 12 Pendimethalin 6.6 4. Control 0.25 MTU 7029 110.4 – – – 5.6 (b) Green manure Green manuring in rice fields to supplement nitrogen fertilizer was the other technology tested at the Patna site. Sesbania was sown in ZTDSR in seven farmers’ fields. Herbicides were used to kill Sesbania at a specific height that provided nutrient to rice plants. Table 20 provides a summary of the experiments.
34
Table 20. Use of basal dose of 80% nitrogen and Sesbania sowing during kharif 2004, in Patna, India.
Basal fertilizer dose (kg/ha)
Subsequent fertilizer dose
(kg/ha)
Fertilizer saving (kg/ha)
Name of farmer Name of village
Area (ha)
N P K N P K N P K
Grain yield (t/ha)
Surdarshanachary Taret 0.050 41.4 32.0 16.0 55.2 – – 18.9 – – 5.57 Surdarshanachary Taret 0.050 41.4 32.0 16.0 – – – – – – – Arun Kumar Azad nagar 0.044 45.4 46.0 – 29.4 – – 40.7 – – 5.81 Yogendra Verma Azad nagar 0.037 41.4 32.0 16.0 – – – – – – – Dwarikanath Naharpura 0.037 41.4 32.0 16.0 – – – – – – – Dwarikanath Naharpura 0.037 41.4 32.0 16.0 – – – – – – – Dwarikanath Naharpura 0.037 37.8 29.4 – 36.8 – – 41.0 – – 6.07 Control Taret 0.250 42.0 36.9 – 73.6 – – – – – 5.61
(c) Training
Two rounds of hands‐on training were conducted to show farmers how to use the LCC as a means of saving nitrogen fertilizer without losing production. LCC sets were distributed to the farmers attending the training. Concerned scientists followed up on the use of the LCC. The results are yet to be reported. Similarly, training was organized to show farmers how to make beds and cultivate maize + potato on beds.
(d) RCT use in rabi (winter 2004‐05) crops
Wheat is established on 7.72 ha of land that belongs to 32 farmers in three project villages at the Patna site using a zero‐till drill and rotary‐disc seed drill/double‐disc planter in the field with and without rice residue. Similarly, potato + maize are planted on a raised bed on 1.69 ha of land that belongs to 20 farmers. Details appear in Table 21.
Table 21. Use of RCTs on winter/rabi 2004 crops at Patna, India.
Site no.
Village No. of farmers Area (katha, 0.0125 ha)
Rotary‐disc seed drill/double‐disc planter in residue fields 1. Taret 3 75 2. Naharpura 4 55 3. Azadnagar 5 53 Paired‐row planting of wheat 1. Taret 1 40 2. Naharpura 4 45 3. Azadnagar 2 15 Equally spaced rows of wheat with 11‐tine zero‐till drill 1. Taret 10 300 2. Naharpura 2 20 3. Azadnagar 1 15 Diversification—potato + maize on raised bed 1. Taret 7 85
35
2. Naharpura 5 25 3. Azadnagar 8 25
2.4.12 Mau Site, Uttar Pradesh, India
(a) Nitrogen management in paddy
Training was conducted on how to use the LCC and on the method of nitrogen broadcasting. Altogether, 23 farmers, 8 each in Haldharpur and Thalaipur and 7 in Gulauri, were trained on use of the LCC and given one set each of the LCC.
(b) ZT rice field demonstration
Zero‐till direct sowing of rice (variety: MTU 1001) was demonstrated in four farmers’ fields in Gulauri village. Crop failure occurred in some plots because of excessive weed and waterlogging problems. But the ones that survived demonstrated good results. Details on one of the plots appear in Table 22. Although paddy yield is less, net profit per unit of land is more with ZT. Table 22. Costs and returns from ZTDS of rice in kharif 2004, Patna, India.
Itemno.
Item Rate/unit ZT rice Farmers’ practice
1 Seed Rs/ha 560 560 2 Tractor Rs/ha 1,250 3,125 3 Fertilizer Rs/ha 2,024 2,024 4 Irrigation Rs/ha 1,150 1,372 5 Farm labor Rs/ha 3,070 7,250 6 Total inputs Rs/ha 8,054 14,331 7 Paddy yield t/ha 2.83 3.19 8 Gross income Rs/ha 14,150 15,950 9 Gross margin (8−6) Rs/ha 6,096 1,619 10 Input per kg Rs/kg 2.85 4.49
(c) RCT use in rabi (winter 2004‐05) crops
A new sodic‐tolerant wheat variety was introduced together with RCTs such as reduced‐ and/or zero‐tillage techniques. A front‐line demonstration on wheat establishment was done using a zero‐till machine, star‐wheel punch planter, and raised‐bed planter. Selected herbicides were used for weed control, including P. minor, which is a serious problem in the area. Farmers have become aware and there is growing demand for RCT machines by fellow farmers.
2.5.13 Parwanipur site, Nepal
(a) Introduction of mung bean in the rice-wheat system
For a sustainable rice‐wheat system, mung bean variety C‐5 from Bangladesh was introduced at the Parwanipur site and other villages of Parsa, Bara, and Rautahat districts.
The crop was good despite late planting caused by late arrival of seed. Some farmers have saved seed and are very enthusiastic about planting next season.
36
(b) Direct‐seeded rice experiment
Farmers’ participatory research on direct‐seeded rice (DSR) technologies was conducted at Triveni village in Bara District. Rice variety BG 1442 was used. Four treatments were used: T1: DSR by power‐tiller drill (PTD), T2: DSR by zero‐till drill (ZTD), T3: DSR by furrow‐irrigated raised bed (FIRB), and T4: farmers’ practice.
The highest grain yield of 5,541 kg/ha was found with DSR by PTD, followed by DSR by FIRB (4,682 kg/ha). DSR by ZTD yielded 4,210 kg/ha, but there was a savings of Rs 2,487 per ha compared to the farmers’ practice (Table 23).
Table 23. Influence of direct‐seeded rice (DSR) on grain and straw yields in kharif 2004, Parwanipur, Nepal.
Treatment Grain yield at 14% moisture content (kg/ha)
Straw yield (kg/ha)
Land prep., sowing, transplanting costs
Total returns (Rs)
T1: DSR by power‐ tiller drill
5,541 5,809 3,396 51,323
T2: DSR by zero‐till drill
4,210 4,343 3,634 38,974
T3: DSR on beds by furrow‐irrigated raised bed
4,682 9,638 3,910 44,545
T4: farmers’ practice 4,461 7,496 6,121 42,026 (c) Soil solarization
Soil solarization for the rice nursery was done in Lipnibirta village. Soil tilling with a 9‐tine cultivator, followed by planking, was done to have good soil pulverization. Beds of 10 m × 1 m × 0.15 m were formed manually and were covered with transparent polythene sheet for 1 month for soil solarization. After a month, seed of rice variety BG 1442 was manually sown in lines on beds. The results show that solarization produces healthy seedlings, resulting in better yields.
(d) Aromatic rice varietal experiment
The experiment on aromatic rice varieties selected by the Regional Agricultural Research Station, Parwanipur, was conducted at Lipnibirta village in two farmers’ fields. The rice varieties were NP49, Saket, and Pusa 1176 (Pusa Basmati).
The yield levels did not differ much from that of local Basmati. The comparative advantage of this variety vis‐à‐vis the local variety should be clear once information on eating quality and market prices becomes available.
(e) Evaluation of the leaf color chart (LCC) for N management in farmers’ fields
A one‐day farmers’ training on the LCC and weed management in rice was organized at project villages. Experiments on LCC‐based N management were conducted at Triveni and Parwanipur villages in Bara and Parsa districts, respectively, during the kharif season of 2004. The results showed that use of the LCC for N management produced 6% higher grain yield with 25% less nitrogen than the farmers’ practice.
37
Among the technologies demonstrated in the project villages at Parwanipur in kharif 2004, the following were judged to be successful by participating farmers:
Direct‐seeded rice by PTD/ZTD/DS
Minimum tillage by PTD for wheat
Zero tillage by ZTD
Mung bean C‐5 for the rice‐wheat system
(f) Rabi (winter 2004‐05) season activities
Wheat is established using different RCTs in the project villages. Details by technology and farmer are presented in Tables 24 and 25. Many other farmers have observed and followed the RCTs. AIRC, the project implementation office located at Birgunj, provided technical support and machines to farmers as far as resources allowed it to do so.
Table 24. Wheat establishment methods at Triveni, Bara, Parwanipur site, Nepal.
Farmer’s Name Treatment Area (m2) Sowing date (2004)
Mr. Paras Thakur FIRB FP
ADH
1,082 837 1,667
3 Dec 3 Dec 5 Dec
Mr.Mukh Lal Thakur ZTD FIRB PTD FP
806 1,020 867 323
3 Dec 3 Dec 4 Dec 4 Dec
Mr. Ram Pravesh Giri ZTD PTD
865 718
4 Dec 4 Dec
Mr. Ram Ekwal Sah ZTD PTD
356 323
4 Dec 4 Dec
Mr. Gauri Shankar Sah* PTD ZTD
2,066 1,116
4 Dec 4 Dec
Mr. Ram Ishwar Mahato PTD ZTD
1,328 1,328
4 Dec 4 Dec
* Varieties used: Gautam and NL 297. Table 25. Wheat establishment methods at Sibarwa, Parsa, Parwanipur site, Nepal.
Farmer’s name Treatment Area (m2) Sowing date (2004)
Mr. Hari Narayan Mahato PTD 1,667 4 Dec Mr. Yogendra Pd. Chauhan ZTD 1,667 3 Dec Mr. Radha Krishna Mahato FIRB
PTD FP
1,667 2,335 1,000
8 Dec 4 Dec 4 Dec
Mr. Nandu Mahato ZTD PTD
350 500
3 Dec 4 Dec
Mr. Vidya Raut ZTD PTD
400 400
3 Dec 4 Dec
Mr. Lal Bahadur Baitha ZTD PTD
350 500
3 Dec 4 Dec
38
2.5 Strengthening physical facilities of implementing partners
The project provided resources to NARES partners for procurement of and repair/maintenance of agricultural implements and machinery necessary for validation and scaling‐out activities in the project villages (Table 26). The project also funded one computer as part of upgrading office facilities of the Mau site. Provision was also made for e‐mail service to the Mau site as it could not arrange the same through a regular process. So far, no field equipment has been provided to the Patna or Mau sites as they could make use of equipment from other sources. Operating costs for machinery were provided to all sites as required. Table 26. Number of machines/implements purchased and repaired under project funding.
Machines/implements Dinajpur Mau Parwanipur
Seeder 2 – – Power tiller 1 – 1 Power‐tiller drill – – 5 Zero‐till drill – – 3 Corn sheller 1 – – Bed planter 1 – – Thresher 1 – – Reaper 1 – – Sprayer 2 – – Computer – 1 – Office equipment – – 1
2.6 ICT‐based information management 2.6.1 Targeting RCTs using satellite data
Satellite remote sensing is being used to characterize and identify potential zones for adoption of various resource‐conserving technologies. Four project sites (Mau in Uttar Pradesh, Patna in Bihar in India, Bara and Parsa in Nepal, and Dinajpur and Rangpur in Bangladesh) have been selected for the identification of potential zones suitable for site‐specific RCTs (Figure 11). Data needs and methodologies were discussed at a stakeholders’ meeting held in New Delhi in February 2004. Various satellite data products of IRS ID, LISS III, and IRS P6 LISS‐IV sensors and their date of pass were compiled for the rabi season of 2005 to extract the appropriate information based on expected physical conditions, season, and crop situation. Global positioning system data collection has begun and most of the ancillary information has been collected (e.g., information on soil, temperature, rainfall, etc.) and stored in a geographic information system (GIS) environment for further analysis. Some existing georeferenced information and other spatial data were also collected from ICIMOD (International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Nepal), the Bangladesh Country Almanac (BCA, CIMMYT‐Bangladesh), and National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning, New Delhi. This was included in a database for technology targeting analysis.
39
Figure 11 Selected sites for targeting technology in favorable and unfavorable ecologies for rice in transect 4 and transect 5 of the Indo‐Gangetic Plains.
2.6.2 Spatially referenced databases
A user‐friendly interactive information system is being created and promoted for keeping records of RCT adoption sites. This interface is capable of storing, retrieving, querying, and analyzing spatial information related to RCT diffusion across the region. The interface has the facility to import from/export to Excel, text, and html formats. The application is integrated with look‐up tables, which enable users to add location‐specific information and local names (for weeds, diseases, tillage practices, etc.).
2.6.3 Project and Research Information Systems Module (PRISM)
The Project and Research Information Systems Module (PRISM) is a database of projects, practices, experts, and organizations involved in rice‐wheat disciplines across the Indo‐Gangetic Plains (IGP). The information in the database is managed by representatives of agricultural research organizations (organization focal points), who are in turn associated with national focal points in their country. PRISM started off in 2001 but was further developed and promoted in the context of the current project in collaboration with WIS International.
The software PRISM was upgraded to include a new module on practices emanating from the region. The data‐entry, search, and retrieval mechanisms, as with the other modules (projects, organizations, and experts), are built up around the Rice‐Wheat Consortium’s mandated thematic areas. To bring the information to the forefront and to strengthen the PRISM networks at the national level, it was believed that training and promotional workshops needed to be held in each consortium country. Altogether, four workshops, one each in Bangladesh and Nepal and two in India (one in Delhi and the other in Varanasi), were conducted in 2004. As 20 October 2004, when the first round of national workshops had been completed, 100 scientists, researchers, and information managers from across the IGP had received training on PRISM.
40
3. Lessons learned, issues, and problems encountered
3.1 From IRRI‐managed sites
(a) Power of community action
It was noted that involving farming communities or cohesive groups of farmers from the very beginning, instead of individually or simply a collection of individual farmers, in making decisions to try, evaluate, adapt, and adopt results in faster adoption. It was observed from sites where the approach was adopted properly that the rate of adoption appeared to be faster. The underlying reason is that, when the technologies are discussed in a larger meeting of a community, even if a smaller number of people would try a technology, the rest would remain informed about the testing from the very beginning. This transfers the ownership of the testing/validation to the community as an informal monitoring and evaluation process is put in place. It was noted that, by the time the crop reached maturity, the community would have already formed its opinion about the technology. This facilitates better decision‐making about adoption or non‐adoption.
Experiences from the Raipur site in Chattisgarh have demonstrated that facilitating communities in making decisions about validation resulted in a larger number of farmers than planned participating, a much larger area than planned being covered in the very first season, farmers developing rules of business about custom‐hiring of tractors and seed drills, the use of a single variety of rice to allow the group to sow chickpea during the dry season together to protect the crop from stray cattle, and sharing of experiences gained by different community members. Community action also resulted in a visible impact for other farmers from the same and neighboring villages, and policymakers.
(b) Win confidence—dissolve formal barriers
Most farmers willing to try a new technology would like to understand the technology well and have some confidence that the technology will perform well. This means that they should believe in what the researchers explain, unless they have seen something different happen elsewhere. It is therefore essential to win the trust and confidence of farmers. Dissolving formal barriers and respecting farmers for their traditional knowledge and skills facilitates establishing a collegial relationship.
(c) Matching technology with farmers’ needs
One of the successes of the process used was that the project conducted a participatory needs and opportunity assessment (PNOA) at the very beginning to identify needs and opportunities. Through the process, such needs were matched with potential technologies with an expectation of faster adoption.
(d) Ex ante analysis of adoption—identifying the critical issues
It is important to do an ex ante analysis of the potential adoption of technologies. This analysis should identify the critical issues that might facilitate adoption at an accelerated rate and what might be a constraint to such acceleration. This can also help identify which stakeholders are important to be involved and when to facilitate adoption. Not only researchers and extension workers need to do such analysis; farmers will also benefit as they will have better insight into the technology and its adoption. For example, in Bangladesh, it was found that unless the owners of the shallow tube wells agreed to try direct wet‐seeding
41
using the plastic drum seeder, it would be extremely difficult for other farmers to try it since the optimum time of seeding is about a month before the normal time of transplanting. In most cases, therefore, such owners were involved as key partners, who, in turn, organized other farmers to try the technology.
(e) Who decides who should try—handing over power and ownership
Traditionally, researchers and extension workers “select” or “identify” who should conduct an on‐farm trial or demonstration. This is often done to establish the credibility of the research or extension staff concerned so that they can say that they have conducted so many on‐farm trials or demonstrations. In this mode, farmers sometimes do not even fully understand what is being done and often even neighbors do not know what is being tested. This is contrary to the basic principles of a participatory approach as farmers should participate voluntarily after they have fully understood the technology and consequences of its adoption. Identification of farmers was found to be effective when this was done by farming communities themselves through community meetings. Research and extension should facilitate and explain so that potential partners understand and can voluntarily decide to participate. Only then does ownership of the testing or validation take place.
(f) Facilitate rather than prescribe
Experiences gained from several sites have shown that research and extension should facilitate with information so that farmers can analyze, understand, and decide how they should manage a technology. Once they understand, they can be a better source of innovations. Farmers’ decision to use a single variety of rice, MTU1010, in Raipur during the kharif season to enable them to plant chickpea together after rice is an example of such facilitation. Direct wet‐seeding of rice under zero‐tillage conditions using the drum seeder is another example of good innovation.
(g) Involve all stakeholders from the very beginning or get them involved
As has been said, ex ante analysis of adoption facilitated the identification of important stakeholders, including media, in places where this was adequately done. This helped people buy into the partnership. In case one or more of the important stakeholders are reluctant, exposing them to successes may influence such buy‐in. Politicians need to be exposed as they are the policymakers and funding of future activities depends on their support. The involvement of the Minister and State Minister for Agriculture of Bangladesh and Secretary of Agriculture, West Bengal, India, is an example of such a buy‐in as in both cases the governments are allocating resources to support scaling up.
(h) Learning from farmers and integrating them with the future planning process
The project organized two farmer‐participatory workshops in Bangladesh on drum seeders, in which farmers were requested to share their experiences, positive or negative, with the researchers, extension workers, and other farmers. Summaries of such lessons were integrated to plan subsequent activities. The project also involved these farmers in training other farmers.
(i) Organization and management of change
One issue that often does not get attention is management of change that takes place after the adoption of a new technology, particularly if it brings about substantial change. Drum
42
seeding and use of the leaf color chart are two technologies that can bring about such change. When these technologies are scaled up on a large scale, they need to be managed. It is essential that the delivery mechanism, development of skills of the development workers and farmers, linkages with stakeholders, monitoring performances, trouble‐shooting, providing feedback to researchers, identifying policy support needed, and winning such support have to go hand in hand for accelerated adoption. Appropriate organizational and management arrangements must therefore be put in place.
3.2 Lessons learned and problems encountered at CIMMYT‐managed sites
There was a substantial delay in starting the project. An inception meeting was held in February 2004. Some confusion remained regarding the sites and NARES partners. Only in May 2004 was it confirmed that one of the sites would be Patna (Bihar), where the Indian Council for Agricultural Research‐Research Complex for Eastern Region (ICAR‐RCER) would be the implementing partner. The case was similar with selection of the site under NDUAT, Faizabad. Initially, two sites (Mau and Siddharthanagar) were proposed. Considering the distance between those two sites, difficult working conditions, and available resources, it was decided to work at only one site (Mau). Those initial obstacles delayed the selection of project villages and identification of star technologies for technology validation for the monsoon season.
Problems in communication also cropped up as one of the sites did not have an e‐mail or fax facility. The only source of communication, the telephone, also was not dependable because of the isolated location of the KVK Mau. Any message from and to KVK Mau needed to be routed through its NDUAT headquarters, based in Faizabad. This problem was circumvented by providing Internet access from a local service provider in Mau town, 20 km from KVK. A new computer was also sent to KVK to facilitate reporting.
Frequent transfer of professionals from one location to another also posed some problems in project implementation. Three different people were made chief of KVK Mau from May 2004 to January 2005. Some problems were also observed in the Agricultural Implements Research Center (AIRC), Birgunj, implementing office for the Parwanipur site, Nepal, because of the transfer of one of the team members.
Because of the delay in start‐up, some actions also suffered. Late planting of mung bean in Parwanipur caused by the late arrival of seed from Bangladesh resulted in crop loss in some plots. Some zero‐till direct‐seeded rice in Patna suffered as heavy rain damaged newly germinated seed.
Learning from the problems/mistakes in 2004, the concerned partners have made prior arrangements for seed, implements, and chemicals for next yearʹs programs. Across sites, initial results from the monsoon 2004 season were encouraging, whereas rabi crops are still in the field. It was also thought that possibly too many activities were started in 2004 at some sites and in some seasons. Proposed activities for 2005 have therefore been reduced in number to provide more focus.
4. Documents, reference materials, and publications
1. A guideline was developed on “Participatory Needs and Opportunity Assessment (PNOA) to Match Prototype Technologies for Validation in Farmers’ Fields.” This was distributed to the participants for standardizing the methodologies. The
43
objectives of the PNOA are to (a) describe the biophysical, socio‐cultural (including gender analysis), and economic circumstances and typologies of farmers, role of the rice‐wheat system, as well as farmers’ perceptions of prototype technologies; (b) identify the limiting factors or necessary conditions/resources that would help accelerate the wider adoption of identified prototype technologies; and (c) match farmers’ circumstances and needs with two to three prototype technologies.
2. A complementary guideline on “Implementing Farmer/Community Approach in Validating Farmer‐Identified Technologies and Scaling Up” was also developed and distributed to the participants.
5. Workshops and training courses organized
1 The project conducted planning meetings at each site to identify the team members, roles, and responsibilities at each site and to plan for yearly activities.
2 The project conducted a “Training Workshop on Social Science Component of IFAD Project” on 23‐26 April 2004 at the Agricultural Training Center Ramakrisna Mission Ashrama Narendrapur, Kolkata, West Bengal, India. The objective was to strengthen the capacities of our NARES partners in applying participatory rural appraisal (PRA) tools for needs assessment and matching farmers’ needs with prototype technologies. Dr. Konar, Director of Agriculture of West Bengal, inaugurated this workshop. Team members (23) of the 12 sites from Bangladesh, India, and Nepal participated in this training‐cum‐workshop led by IRRI social scientists (Dr. T. Paris and Dr. Manik Lal Bose). This activity culminated with a field practicum in which the participants applied their learning from this refresher course on PNOA.
3. The project organized an “Analysis and Report Writing Workshop” at the Training Center at IRRI headquarters on 24‐31 January 2005. This workshop enabled the NARES collaborators to analyze, write the PNOA report, and prepare for their presentations for the Annual Review and Planning Meeting of the project held in Dhaka, Bangladesh, on 2‐4 Feb. 2005. (See the summary reports of the PNOA and presentations during the review.) This activity was organized by IRRI scientists T. Paris, M.Z. Abedin, and M. Hossain.
4. The project developed simple socioeconomic baseline questionnaires as a basis for measuring the adoption and impact of prototype technologies.
5. To build a cadre of scientists and extension workers from NARES with skills on the farmer/community approach, several collaborators under the IFAD project have been identified to participate in the CIP‐UPWARD training course on the farmer/community participatory approach. Priority was given to NARES collaborators under the IFAD project.
6. A farmer participatory workshop on direct wet‐seeding using a plastic drum seeder was organized on 19‐20 June 2004 in BRRI, Bangladesh. About 50 farmers and 50 research and senior extension officials shared their experiences. All participating farmers who had tested the drum seeder narrated their experiences. They identified the land type, soil type, geographic area, etc., suitable for the technology.
44
6. PROPOSED ACTIVITIES FOR 2005
6.1 Socioeconomic and policy analysis
Socioeconomic tools, including the PRA, PNOA, and focus‐group discussion, are already developed and a draft report prepared for all four sites. This activity will not be repeated in 2005. The household baseline survey to establish a benchmark database has been completed already at three sites. The other sites have started the household baseline survey and will be completing it within the next two months. The component will conduct the following activities during 2005:
1. Continue conducting socioeconomic surveys
2. Initiate a survey on assessing project impact toward the end of the project
3. Evaluate the performance of the prototype technologies (technical analysis, economic analysis, farmers’ subjective assessment)
4. Analyze farmers’ response to the validation/demonstration trials
5. Conduct short surveys to monitor progress
6. Organize training courses to enhance capacity
7. Suggest modifications to the prototype technologies
6.2 Technology validation and scaling up
Considering the site‐specific socioeconomic and biophysical conditions and preferences of farmers, the technologies were validated/scaled up by the respective NARES partners at the sites.
The effectiveness of the technologies validated in 2004 was assessed during the annual review meeting. It was found that most of the technologies started in 2004 were successful. Considering the objectives of the project and comparative advantages of some technologies over others, the partners decided to continue with only the most successful technologies.
Proposed socioeconomic and technology validation–related activities for 2005 are summarized in Appendices 6 and 7.
6.3 ICT‐based information management
Various georeferenced data have been collected and analyzed in the first year of the project. This will be continued in the second year. A user‐friendly interactive information system will be developed for the use of stakeholders as a means of technology diffusion. Other activities for 2005 are methodology development, validation, and refinements. Priority setting and decision‐making for targeting areas will be continued.
A number of PRISM workshops are planned, including one in Bangladesh, two in India, and one in Nepal. The PRISM initiative will be presented at selected ICT‐for‐development meetings.
45
Appendix 1. Implementation guidelines for technology validation and scaling up using the community participatory approach to research (CPAR) in the project IFAD TAG 634.
STEP ACTIVITY DETAILS/REMARKS
- Identify critically important disciplines
- Establish multidisciplinary research team (RT)
- Composed of about 3–5 members - RT is formed to plan, implement, evaluate, and
report on project activities - Include biological and social scientists and 1–2
partners from key development institutions (extension service, NGOs, community‐based farmer organizations, etc.)
1. Form a multidisciplinary team
- Discuss and arrive at common understanding on project objectives, outputs, and activities
46
- Analyze the overall rainfed target area/production system
- Use secondary information and experiences - Describe agroecological variations,
cropping/farming systems diversity, social diversity, potential to improve productivity of the system and its role in improving food security
- Characterize and prioritize the domain and variabilities within the domain
- Based on land and soil type, rainfall, hydrology, cropping/farming systems, major problems of production/farming systems, socioeconomic characteristics of farmers, etc. Use GIS tools.
2. Define target group/recommendation domain
- Agree on a specific situation that the team will work on
- Consider technologies available in the pipeline and potential for matching those with the problems of targeted farmers in the domain and potential impact.
- List available technologies tested but not yet transferred in the area by various institutions
- Review secondary information - Discuss with partners - Consult other colleagues for their ideas
- Select “star technologies” - Consider technologies that will have high potential for adoption and impact
- Select a maximum of three technologies
3. Identify “star technologies” available from research
- Characterize the “star technologies” selected
- Biological characteristics - Agroecological environment needed - Crop management needed - Cropping/farming systems they fit in - Special requirements for adoption, if any - Anticipated policy change needed - Expected biological, economic, environmental,
and social benefits - Review whether the selection of technologies
was correct
47
- Prepare a tentative work plan to validate and scale up the technologies selected
- This is a tentative work plan to help the team decide according to resources and time available
- Consider the human, physical (including seeds), and financial resources available
- Include activities for wider publicity among farming communities, policymakers, senior managers, donors, and other stakeholders
- Indicate who will do what, when, and how, and what resources will be needed
- Discuss within the group the methodological details, particularly on the community participatory approach to research, and agree
‐ Consider inviting an external resource person if needed
4. Prepare a tentative work plan
- Consult other stakeholders and colleagues for their valuable ideas
- Identify locations (sites) representative of the target area/domain
- Use GIS data and tools - 3–6 villages/communities or farmers’ groups
during the first year - Each village or group should preferably have
at least 30 farmers - Communities or groups could be based on
whole village, part of the village, a formal group already functioning well, or a farmer group sharing water from common irrigation equipment
- Villages should preferably be in clusters of 2–3 - Consider including villages where the
technology was originally tested successfully - Community or group members should
represent the target group of farmers - Dominating role by any particular farmer from
within or outside the group must be avoided - Villages/communities should be within
manageable distances from the office - Identify villages or communities as controls
- To test the rate of adoption and to compare performance of technologies
5. Select locations for technology validation and scaling up
- Identify local partner organizations and their representatives to work together in the selected villages
- Partners could be from public‐sector extension service, NGOs, grass‐roots farmer organizations, etc.
- Establish clear understanding of objectives, roles, and responsibilities of each of the partners
48
- Establish rapport with the farming communities and share objectives of future collaboration
- The main objective is to establish active partnership dissolving barriers of formal relationship
- Let local partner facilitate organizing community meetings initially
- Discuss and agree on the added value of partnership
- Establish understanding that communities will have to take leadership and research team will assist them with knowledge and information
- Make sure that the research team is not violating this principle in subsequent activities
- Establish terms and conditions of mutual collaboration
- Communities should agree to share information with researchers and other farmers about new technologies
- Roles and responsibilities of the research team and farmers should be defined
- Please note that research will provide critical inputs only. No free inputs will be provided.
- Agree with the group on how the farmer group or community would like to work as a team
- Look for the existence of any organizational set‐up for the community to manage its activities and the partnership with research
- Probe to understand how the community is working
- Understand the need for improving organizational arrangements, and plan to assist in bringing improvements
- Advise and do not impose any idea - Be flexible on the process - See what works without jeopardizing the
empowerment aspect of the process
6. Establish partnership with communities
- Document the process, outcomes, approaches used with different communities, and their effect on community involvement and adoption
‐ Keep notes and discuss in the group the process and outputs
- Review previous surveys conducted, decide on what new information needs to be generated
- Conduct rapid participatory assessment of current livelihood, existing cropping/farming system, priority problems, current coping mechanisms, and potential solutions
- Sharpen your understanding of the problems and their causes, priorities, and opportunities
- Use PRA tools (key informant survey, focus‐group discussion, transect walk, matrix rankings, seasonal calendar, wealth rankings, timelines, diagrams, etc.). Use simple formal surveys when necessary.
7. Conduct participatory diagnostic exercise
- Prioritize problems and potential solutions with communities
49
- Document indigenous technical knowledge toward problems and their solutions
- Document the process and outputs
- Let the local partner facilitate the organization of a community meeting
- The meeting should be attended not by a number of farmers selected individually by the local partner, but by the members of a cohesive group, representing the target group
- Local partner should arrange the meeting through the leader of the group/community
- No one from within the community should dominate the process to protect the interest of the target farmers
- Explore and find out ways to involve women - Share the diagnostic information with the community and discuss how the potential technologies will help solve one or more problems
- Review the list of star technologies and identify which ones will have potential for adoption
- Match the potential role of the identified technologies with farmer problems and technology needs
- Discuss how the technologies will help solve one or more farmer problems
- Rely on farmers’ indigenous technical knowledge and share new knowledge that research has generated
- Explain the conditions under which the technology will perform well
- Discuss the technical details as much as possible to create good understanding about the technologies and potential benefits
- Use the services of farmers who have tested
the technologies successfully
8. Finalize the work plan with the community
- Allow the communities to plan validation trials and decide on participants
- A minimum of about 10 farmers is needed for testing each technology. Ensure that they are from the target group.
- Discuss and agree on terms and conditions of the collaboration and mutual responsibilities
- Since these are farmer‐managed trials, no free inputs will be provided except what is needed for the technology itself (e.g., for trials with LCC, only LCCs will be provided)
- Farmer‐managed demonstrations may be conducted with partial input support from research under circumstances where demand for the new technologies could be successfully created and where farmers may not be able to take risk due to cash investments needed.
50
- Finalize the research team’s work plan
- Document the process and results
- Train farmers and representatives of local partners on the technologies and for data collection, as needed
9. Implement
- Allow farmers to try the technologies under their management conditions
- For tool‐based technologies, such as the LCC or bed planters, form small groups of farmers sharing a tool
- Monitor and collect data on how farmers adapt and adopt, and how technologies respond to such adaptations
- Record positive and negative responses, with explanations
- Monitor how technology strengthened social fabric and spread beyond target groups, target sites, etc.
- Help communities to monitor
- If all the steps described are followed very well, communities will automatically monitor progress
- Verify and take note of observations at different stages of crop
- Assist communities if they have problems
10. Monitor the progress of work and trouble‐shooting
- Collect agronomic, biophysical, and socioeconomic data
- Include data to explain how and why different farmers manage technologies differently
- Identify 15–20 villages in 5–6 clusters while trials during the first year are in progress
- Local partners may invite farmers from such villages and allow them to evaluate using their criteria
11. Scale up and facilitate diffusion during the second year
- Discuss arrangements to support potential testing by these new communities
- Facilitate technology evaluation at appropriate crop growth stages by community members using their own criteria
- Evaluation is made by men and women members of the community (not only farmer participants)
- Use participatory methods and tools such as matrix ranking, scoring
- Organize field days - If possible, organize special field days for policymakers and senior managers
- Use participatory methods and tools such as matrix ranking, scoring
12. Evaluate the technology
- Conduct your own evaluation
‐ Use statistical analysis
51
- Plan for technology packaging and publication of booklets, bulletins, etc.
- Expose technologies early on to entrepreneurs, policymakers, local leaders, radio, TV, etc.
13. Facilitate diffusion of technology
- Make detailed documentation of what you are learning, how you have overcome or managed internal and external difficulties
14. Review and plan again
- Organize review workshops
52
Appendix 2. Suggested tools and methods in the participatory approach.
Step Tools and methods Key partners Setting recommendation domain/target area
Secondary info, experience, GIS, project doc, etc.
Researchers, extensionists/NGOs
Identifying and establishing rapport with communities
Experience, GIS, informal discussions, sharing objectives
Researchers, extensionists/ NGOs, key informants, communities,
Diagnosis, priority setting, and planning
Review of literature, PRAs, focus‐group discussions, formal surveys, rankings, project doc, etc.
Community groups, researchers, extensionists/NGOs
Implementation Farmer‐managed trials/validation
Community groups, innovators
Monitoring Field visits, discussions, farmer field schools (FFS)
Communities, researchers/extensionists, entrepreneurs
Evaluation, review, and planning again
Field days, community evaluation, FFS, PRA tools such as matrix ranking, scoring, etc.
Communities, researchers/extensionists, entrepreneurs, policymakers
53
Appendix 3. Methodological framework for on‐farm research using farmer participatory approach.
Establishing rapport with farming community and diagnosis and needs assessment
Adoption and impact assessment
Dissemination of technologies
Implementation (Farmer-managed trials)
M & E
M & E
Identifying whose problems need to be solved (target group/recommendation domain)
Joint planning/re-planning of interventions
(trials, demonstrations, surveys,
Evaluation by farmers, review, and re-planning
Formulation of recommendations and technology packaging
54
Appendix 4. Summary of activities at sites managed by CIMMYT during 2004. Month Parwanipur,
Nepal Mau,
Uttar Pradesh, India Patna
Bihar, India Dinajpur, Bangladesh
April 1. Team of professionals formed 2. Introduction of mung bean in
rice‐wheat system 3. Pre‐PRA/PNOA and site
selection 4. Soil solarization for rice
nursery
1. Team of professionals formed
2. Pre‐PRA/PNOA 3. Village selection and site
planning. 4. Group formation, warm‐up
meeting May 1. Training on LCC‐based N
management 2. LCC distribution to farmers
1. Team of professionals formed 2. Pre‐PRA and site selection 3. Village baseline data collection 4. Media coverage
1. Team of professionals formed 2. Pre‐PRA and site selection 3. PNOA in Taret
1. Focus‐group interview 2. Soil solarization for rice
nursery
June 1. Rice on raised bed 2. Participatory testing of
aromatic rice varieties 3. DS rice by PTD and ZTD and
bed planting of rice 4. LCC‐based N management in
rice.
1. Continuation of PRA/PNA and village baseline data collection
2. Direct‐seeded ZT rice in Gulauri
1. Presowing herbicide in rice 2. Postsowing preemergence herbicide
application in rice in Azadnagar 3. Farmers’ orientation training
1. Focus‐group interview 2. Liming (dolomite) to
improve soil quality in Rangpur
July 1. PRA and village baseline data collection
2. Training on LCC‐based N management and herbicide application
1. PNOA in Naharpura and Azadnagar
2. Village baseline data collection 3. Direct‐seeded ZT rice 4. Postsowing preemergence herbicide
application in rice 5. Green manuring + DS zero‐till rice 6. Training on LCC‐based N
management in rice
1. Orientation/training for farmers
2. Liming (dolomite) to improve soil quality in Birganj
3. Rice transplanting
August 1. Training on LCC‐based N application
2. LCC distribution to farmers
1. Second training on LCC‐based N management
2. Herbicide application
1. Used hose pipe for supplementary irrigation
55
3. Observations/data collection on effect of herbicide and Sesbania
4. Media coverage September 1. Insecticide and herbicide
application 2. Hands‐on training on second‐
generation RCTs
1. Needs assessment through PRA and village baseline data collection in Rangpur
October 1. Costs/production data collection
1. Visits of scientists and farmers to other project sites for farmer‐to‐farmer interaction
1. Needs assessment through PRA and village baseline data collection in Birganj
2. Household baseline survey at both selected sites
3. Farmers’ field day, rice harvesting, data collection
November 1. Rice harvesting and data collection
1. Training on ZT machines 2. Training/demonstration on
residue management 3. Kisan gosthi – a farmer‐
scientist discussion session or farmers’ workshop
4. Process initiated for household baseline survey
1. Training farmers in maize + potato cultivation
2. Potato + maize sowing on raised bed
3. Rice harvesting and data collection 4. Media coverage
1. Wheat seed treatment 2. Wheat sowing on bed by
bed planter in Rangpur 3. Wheat sowing by ZTD in
Birganj 4. Wheat sowing by PTOS
December 1. Household baseline survey of project villages
2. Village‐level baseline and household baseline survey of control villages
1. Introduction of new variety of wheat
2. Sowing wheat using RCTs including ZT machine, star‐wheel punch planter, raised‐bed planter, and traffic control
3. Integrated nutrient management in wheat
4. Management of P. minor by ZT/herbicide
5. Media coverage
1. Sowing wheat using RCTs such as zero tillage with and without residue
2. Surface seeding of wheat with component technology
3. Intercropping of rabi crops 4. Insecticide and herbicide
application on maize and wheat 5. Polythene sheets for growing
vegetable seedlings
1. Used hose pipe for supplementary irrigation
56
Appendix 5. Farmers’ opinions about demonstrated technologies in Dinajpur, Bangladesh, 2004.
Technology Positive opinion Negative opinion
I. Establishment method Wet direct‐seeded rice (DSR) by drum seeder
1. Good technology, good yield 2. It saved transplanting cost 3. Will follow in future if drum seeder
available
1. Need to avoid damage from birds, goats, and cattle2. Need to ensure water supply at seeding time
Power‐tiller‐operated seeder (PTOS) for wheat
1. Happy to see machine 2. Very effective for quick wheat seeding 3. Reduced late planting 4. Low‐cost technology 5. Have already adopted and sown others
plots this machine
1. The PTOS needs to be available in the area
II. New crop varieties Rice—BRRI dhan 32 1. High yield
2. Earlier than BR11 3. Kept seed and will cultivate some land
with this variety next year
1. Still need to observe
Rice—BRRI dhan 33 1. Very early, helps in food crisis period 2. Kept seed and will cultivate some land
with this variety next year
1. Yield was not very high 2. Need to observe again
Wheat—Shatabdi 1. The plants looks good 2. Have cultivated some other land with
Shatabdi seeds at farmers’ initiation
1. At this moment, no negative comments
III. Soil and nutrient management Liming 1. It improved soil fertility
2. Already started to apply on other land 1. Initial cost is high
LCC use in rice 1. Very easy to estimate urea 2. It reduced cost 3. Used for other plots
1. Need to make the LCC available in the market
Raising healthy rice seedlings through soil solarization
1. Seedlings were healthy, vigorous, tall, and deep green in color
2. Performance was good 3. Try to follow in future
1. Polythene is costly
57
Appendix 6. Farmer‐identified problems and technologies to be validated.
Site Production system
Farmer‐identified problems
Technologies to be validated
CIMMYT-managed sites 1. Nepal Rice‐wheat • Scaling up of mung bean C5
• Aromatic rice (Pusa 1176, Saket, NP49)
• Early rice variety (BG144) • Introduction of mung in between
wheat and rice • Growing Sesbania in rice fields
• Soil solarization for rice nursery • Sheath blight management for Sonamasuli
• Leaf blight management in wheat • Wilt management in lentil • Weed management in rice, wheat, potato, and lentil
• Insect management in rice, wheat, and lentil
• Micronutrient management in rice (zinc) and wheat (boron)
• Rhizobium introduction in mung bean and lentil
• LCC‐based N management • Use of drum seeder for rice
establishment • DS rice by PTD, direct‐seeding in rice
• Use of zero‐till seed drill for wheat and rice establishment
• Use of power‐tiller‐operated seeder for wheat establishment
• Zero‐till bed planting in wheat 2. South Bihar (Patna), India
Rice‐wheat Low market price of vegetable seedlings due to delayed planting
• Use of polythene roof‐house to grow vegetable seedlings for early production
Low cropping intensity due to non‐availability of compatible crops; low productivity of maize + potato system
• Bed planting of quality protein maize (QPM) + potato in rabi
58
High‐cost inputs for crop production
• Resource‐conserving technologies (RCTs) in rice, wheat, and other rabi crops
• Use of zero‐till seed drill for wheat and rice establishment
• LCC‐based N management Low household
income due to lack of alternative employment within the village, especially for women
• Mushroom cultivation
3. Faizabad (Mau), India
Rice‐wheat High‐cost inputs for rice and wheat production
• Use of zero‐till seed drill for wheat and rice establishment
• Rice transplanting without puddling Overuse of N
fertilizers • LCC‐based N management
Non‐availability of salt‐tolerant rice varieties
• Use of salt‐tolerant high‐yielding varieties in reclaimed sodic soil
• Reclamation of sodic soil • Use of green manure such as Sesbania
• Zero tillage • Controlled traffic • Residue‐managed zero tillage • Pod fly/borer management • Rice‐wheat‐mung bean Low cropping
intensity • Early variety of pigeonpea to allow
wheat cultivation after pigeonpea 4. Rangpur/ Dinajpur, Bangladesh
Rice‐wheat Low soil fertility and overuse of N fertilizer
• Acidic soil amendment through liming
• LCC‐based N management Late sowing of
wheat • Use of power‐tiller‐operated seeder
for wheat establishment • Surface seeding of wheat Water management • Hose pipe irrigation • Maize + mung after wheat in South
Momenpur • Wheat sowing in presence of rice
residue through use of rotary‐disc drill
• Introduction of relay mung bean in wheat field in Bramanvita
• Early varieties of rice (BR32) and wheat (Satabdi)
IRRI‐managed sites 5. Chattisgarh, India Rice‐
legume/pulses Low yield and poor weed management
• Direct dry‐seeding through line sowing using tractor‐ or bullock‐drawn implements
59
Low cropping intensity
• Use of short‐duration variety of rice and establishment of modern variety of chickpea
6. Jharkhand, India Rice‐legume/pulses
Low cropping intensity and low crop diversity
• Rice‐pulse (chickpea) • Improved short‐duration rice
varieties Sadabahar and Anjali Low household
income • Mushroom cultivation using paddy
straw 7. Chuadanga, Bangladesh
Rice Low income, labor shortage
• Direct‐seeding using a plastic drum seeder
Overuse of N fertilizer, high fertilizer cost, and low returns from N fertilizer
• Use of LCC for real‐time N management
Low yield of existing rice varieties
• Validation of BR4828 and BR6110
Low yield of wheat due to delayed sowing
• Timely sowing of wheat through zero‐tillage machine
Low productivity of maize + potato system
• QPM + potato intercropping
8. North Bihar, India Rice‐wheat
Low household income and lack of alternative sources of income
• Mushroom cultivation using paddy straw
Labor shortage, reduced farm income, and high production cost
• Direct‐seeding using a plastic drum seeder
Overuse of N fertilizer, high fertilizer cost, and low returns from N fertilizer
• LCC use for real‐time N management
Rice‐rice
Low yield of existing varieties
• Long‐duration kharif rice varieties (Sashi, IET15848, Bhudeb)
• Boro rice (Kshitish, Krishnahamsa, Triguna, Pravat)
9.1 West Bengal, Hooghly, India
Rice‐potato‐rice Reduced productivity of potato and boro rice due to delayed planting
• Medium‐duration kharif rice (PNR519, Triguna)
• Double transplanting of boro rice • Short‐duration potato variety (Kufri
Ashoka) Rice‐potato‐
sesame Low yield of sesame
• Improved variety (Rama)
Kharif rice‐potato‐mung/kalai
Low yield of potato due to delayed planting of rice
• Medium‐duration kharif rice (PNR519)
• Mung bean variety (Samrat/PDM54)
60
9.2 West Bengal Narendrapur/Nadia/BCKV, India
Rice‐rice Weed management and labor shortage
• Direct‐seeding using a plastic drum seeder
• Effects of seeding dates using drum seeder
Excessive use of N fertilizer
• LCC use for real‐time N management
Rice‐fallow Low yield and submergence
• Sashi and IET 15848, Jitendra, Hanseswari, Triguna
• Seedbed technology Crop
diversification • Neuro‐toxin‐free lathyrus variety
Nirmal or lentil as second crop, or Sesbania
Labor shortage and high production cost
• LCC for real‐time N management • Direct‐seeding using a plastic drum
seeder 10. Assam, India Rice‐rice Low yield and long
growth duration of rice
• Short‐duration modern variety for early ahu, late sali, and boro
Low soil fertility • Bio‐fertilizer‐based integrated nutrient management (BINM) practice
• Short‐duration modern varieties of boro rice and early ahu
11. Orissa, India Rice‐legume/pulses
Low productivity of rice in flood‐prone areas
• Improved varieties (Saral/Durga/Gayatri) in the flood‐prone ecosystem
Low productivity of green gram
• Increasing the productivity of pulses (green gram) after rice through yellow mosaic virus (YMV)‐resistant varieties
Lack of opportunity to diversify sources of income
• Introduction of paddy straw mushroom for income generation
ICRAF‐managed site • Agro‐horti‐silvicultural farming
system • Intercropping of field crops with
horticultural or silvicultural crops at mid/lower hill areas and between silvicultural crops in hill areas
• Rice‐wheat cropping system in foothills
12. Manipur Agroforestry Land degradation and depletion of soil productivity due to Jhum system, drought, low productivity
• Agronomic measures for soil and water conservation, namely, contour planting on hill slopes
Rice Low cropping intensity
• Improved rice‐wheat cropping system in foothills
61
Appendix 7. Proposed activities for project sites managed by CIMMYT in 2005.
Type Activity Dinajpur Patna Mau Parwanipur
Household baseline survey analysis and reporting
√ √
Analysis and reporting of household results
√ √
Monitoring of ongoing activities √ √ √ √
Develop livelihood indicator and gather required data
√ √ √ √
Socioeconomic studies
Organize farmersʹ field day and awareness campaign
√ √ √ √
Use of power‐tiller‐operated seeder for wheat establishment
√ √
Use of zero‐till seed drill for wheat and rice establishment
√ √ √
Wheat sowing in presence of rice residue through use of rotary‐disc drill
√
Rice transplanting without puddling √
Use of zero‐till seed drill for wheat and rice establishment
√
Surface seeding of wheat √
Crop establishment technology
Use of drum seeder for rice establishment √
Introduction of relay mung bean in wheat field in Bramanvita
√
Bed planting of QPM + potato in rabi √
Early variety of pigeonpea to allow wheat cultivation after pigeonpea
√
Introduction of mung bean in between wheat and rice
√
Maize + mung after wheat in South Momenpur
√
Use of poly‐house to grow vegetable seedlings for early production
√
Early varieties of rice (BR 32) and wheat (Satabdi)
√
Crop diversification /intensification + variety
Early variety of rice (BG 144) √
Acidic soil amendment through liming √
Sodic soil amendment using organic and inorganic methods
√
LCC‐based N management √ √ √ √
Soil and nutrient management
Growing Sesbania in rice field √ √ √