S. Fujisaka
E. Jayson
A. Dapusala
Recommendation domains of farmers' innovations like researcher-
developed technologies require careful attention prior to possible transfer to other
farmers. Upland rice farmers in Batangas, Philippines, developed a labour-saving
crop establishment and weed control system. Farmers in another part of the country
successfully modified the key implement--used for furrow opening and inter-row
cultivation--to adapt the system to slightly heavier soils. Scientists working at another
upland rice research site thought that the technology was suitable for permanent
plow-based upland rice culture and facilitated farmer-to-farmer transfer of the
technology for further farmer testing and adaptation. Although the technology
reduced crop labour, this article details reasons--mostly related to even heavier soils--
why Claveria farmers were forced to return to the use of the plow and seed drilling.
Agriculture scientists working to improve the productivity and sustainability of less favourable environments in developing countries have increasingly realized the importance of incorporating farmer perspectives if innovations are to be adopted. Researchers have paid particular attention to farmer experimentation (Fujisaka, 1993; Box, 1987; Rhoades, 1987), farmer participatory research (Fujisaka, 1989; Ashby, 1987; Biggs, 1988; Farrington and Martin, 1987), farmers' technology development (Fujisaka, 1991; Matlon et al., 1984; Sagar and Farrington, 1988) and the associated technical knowledge of farmers (Fujisaka, 1990; Brokensha et al., 1980; Richards, 1985; Thurston, 1990; Warren and Cashman, 1988). Such research themes have also been tied to 'farmer-back-to-farmer' (Rhoades and Booth, 1982) or similar (Chambers et al., 1989) methods of technology transfer.
Upland rice farmers in Batangas, Philippines, developed an animal-drawn five-tined furrow opener and interrow cultivator (lithao). After primary land preparation, the lithao is used to open parallel furrows. Rice seed is broadcast and then harrowed into the furrows, and seedlings emerge in rows. Intrarow weed removal is done by light harrow drawn at a 45ø angle to the rice rows; and the lithao is used for interrow cultivation. The system requires less labour than the traditional system of furrowing by plow, seed drilling and interrow cultivation by plow.
Agricultural engineers tried to convert the lithao into a furrower and seeder (Khan et al., 1971; Aban et al., 1986). Work was dropped because the metal seeder was laterally unstable and tended to bulldoze as weed residues collected around the blades. Agronomists tested the farmers' lithao for stand establishment, comparing lithao and broadcasting (IRRI, 1975), and later as a furrow opener under upland and rainfed lowland conditions. The wooden lithao was subject to breakage in anything but sandy Batangas soils, however, and was dropped from testing.
Farmers in Tupi, South Cotabato, changed the Batangas farmers' wooden lithao to a steel panudling to suit slightly heavier soils and developed a very productive upland rice system based on use of the implement and associated practices. Scientists from the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) are conducting research in Claveria, Misamis Oriental, to improve the productivity and sustainability of upland rice systems. As part of these efforts, we studied the Tupi-system and concluded that it was a farmer-developed technology that could potentially reduce the high labour demands for weed control in upland rice in Claveria.
In a visit facilitated by the researchers, farmers from Claveria went to Tupi to learn-- using 'hands-on' practice--about the technology from farmers who had developed and were using the system. The newly-trained farmers demonstrated the system to other Claveria farmers, a number (up to 60 farmers in the 1990 wet season) of whom adopted it from 1989 through 1992. Problems related to heavier Claveria soils, however, caused many farmers to return to the use of the plow and seed drilling; and the researchers to reconsider the 'recommendation domain' of the panudling system.
Methods
Claveria and Tupi upland rice farmers were interviewed in wet season 1988 about
their crop management operations in order to compare labour inputs. Yields and
cost-benefits were not compared between the two areas because of more favourable
agroclimatic conditions in South Cotabato.
Claveria farmers were introduced to the system immediately prior to wet season 1989. In wet season 1991, a severe drought year in Claveria, 14 adopters and 19 non- adopters were interviewed about their upland rice crop management operations; and crop-cuts were sampled from the fields to determine yields. Simple costs and returns for adopters and non-adopters were computed and compared. Eighteen farmers who adopted the system in 1989 or 1990, but who rejected use of the technology for wet season 1992 were interviewed at the end of 1992 to determine their reasons for such rejection.
Results
A Comparison of Tupi and Claveria Upland Rice
Operations:
Tupi farmers--using their panudling with removable blades and tines --
conducted more in-field operations but used 25% less labour overall and 25% less
labour and power than Claveria farmers who, using more traditional methods, drilled
the seed and used a plow for furrowing and cultivation.
A Comparison of Claveria panudling Adopters and Non-
adopters' Upland Rice Operations:
Based on experimentation, Claveria farmers gradually modified the
panudling by using heavier materials, changing the removable blades
from paddle- to triangular-shaped, adding a reinforcement bar and angling the blades
forward to achieve better penetration in heavier soils. Some 60 interested farmers
then tested the system in wet season 1990.
For the wet season 1991 crop in Claveria, panudling adopters compared to non-adopters invested less for labour and power; i.e., for plowing, harrowing, furrowing, drilling seed and interrow cultivation by plow. Some of the lower labour and power costs for adopters may also have been due to an 'economy of scale' given their larger rice parcels (0.59 ha for adopters vs 0.39 ha for non- adopters). Material costs were similar. Yields were low due to drought, but somewhat higher for non-adopters (1.29 t/ha) compared to adopters (1.03 t/ha). Returns to labour and power were higher for adopters than non-adopters; while returns to the low material costs were much higher for non-adopters.
So why was the panudling dropped if it saved
labour?
Although adopters were enthusiastic about the higher returns to labour of the system,
most adopters did not use the panudling for upland rice in wet season
1992. Reasons were related to the interrelated causes of heavier soils in Claveria
(compared to Tupi and Batangas), difficulty of handling, sloping land and cost of the
implement itself.
Heavier soils (69% clay, 25% silt and 6% sand) posed problems. Rainfall is sporadic during the cropping season. After several dry days soils become hard and cloddy, making penetrating by the multi-bladed implement difficult. If interrow cultivation was attempted when soils were dried, deviations by the draft animal caused the panudling to cut close to crop rows and to drag clods and attached seedlings from the rows. If, on the other hand, rains came soon before scheduled operations, the heavier soils became sticky, adhering to the implement blades and causing even more bulldozing and damage than under dry conditions. Passed through the lighter soils--wet or dry--of the other sites, on the other hand, the implement did not bulldoze soil and damage seedlings.
Increased demand for draft power was also a problem. The panudling required more draft power than a plow; the heavier Claveria implement required more power than the versions used at the other sites; and heavier soils required more power than lighter soils. Penetration by panudling was very inadequate where top soils were eroded and compacted sub-surface soils were being cultivated.
The panudling was also difficult for farmers--and their draft animals-- to learn how to handle, and learning was made more difficult by heavier soils. For anything except well-pulverized and neither too dry nor too wet soils, clods or otherwise uneven soils would cause the implement to veer or pivot into the crop rows, sometimes making it necessary for two persons to guide the panudling.
The implement was not suited to sloping land. The panudling worked well in Batangas and Tupi where the topography is flat to gently rolling. Claveria farmers cultivated a higher proportion of sloping lands than farmers in the other two locations; and on sloping land, the implement was much more difficult to control than the plow.
The cost of the implement, around $45,--especially with the above named shortcomings--was also prohibitive. IRRI researchers initially provided two panudling for farmers to borrow as needed; and several farmers constructed their own. As the difficulties of working the relatively heavier soils of Claveria became apparent, farmers constructed heavier models--which cost more in terms of both materials and draft requirements.
Other parts of the panudling-based system were also problematic. Claveria farmers were simply not accustomed to broadcast seeding; and many chose instead to drill seed in the furrows. If seed was broadcast, harrowing seed into the furrows was uneven if soils were cloddy. Again, seed was easily harrowed into the furrows where soils were light textured. Similarly, cross-harrowing for intra-row cultivation on heavier soils led to much more damage to seedlings if soils were too wet or too dry.
Conclusions
Use of the panudling for furrow opening and interrow cultivation
combined with broadcast seeding, harrowing of seed into furrows, and intrarow
cultivation by cross-row harrowing is successful in Batangas and Tupi (South
Cotabato). Each of these locations is characterized in part by having relatively light
soils. The wooden version, the lithao, is suited to the sandy Batangas
soils. A light metal and wood version was developed by South Cotabato farmers for
use with their slightly heavier but still sandy soils. An even heavier version was
developed in Claveria, but eventually failed to be adopted because it proved too
difficult to handle and did not work well in the heavy soils.
The long standing definition of 'recommendation domain' by scientists from the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) has been a '... group of farmers whose circumstances are similar enough that they will be eligible for the same recommendation' (Harrington and Tripp 1984:5). Claveria fell outside of the 'recommendation domain' of the panudling technology because a single part of the farmers' circumstances--heavier soil texture in this case--was not similar enough. The 'recommendation domain' would be characterized by: a) animal powered upland rice production b) on permanent fields c) at most gently undulating terrain and d) with light textured soils.
This simple example reemphasizes the need to examine 'recommendation domains' carefully and in detail, even in cases in which technologies are developed and already in use by farmers operating under what appear to be circumstances quite similar to possible 'recipients' of such technologies. The reminder is also provided because of the continuing--albeit now occasional--assessment by some agricultural researchers and extension agents that cases of non-adoption of particular technologies are due to farmers' 'resistance to change' or 'tradition', or to vaguely conceived 'socioeconomic' factors.
S. Fujisaka
E. Jayson
A. Dapusala
International Rice Research Institute
Box 933
1099 Manila
The Philippines
Fax: +63-2-8182087
References
Aban, M.M., E.U. Bautista, E.J. Calilung and L.C. Kiamco (1986) 'Upland seeder
development at IRRI.' Paper presented at MAF-IRRI Technology Transfer
Workshop, Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the International Rice Research
Institute (IRRI), Los Banos, Philippines.
Ashby, J.A. (1987) 'The effects of different types of farmer participation on the management of on farm trials', Agricultural Administration and Extension 24:234-252.
Biggs, S.D. (1988) Resource-poor farmer participation in research: a synthesis from nine national agricultural research programs. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.
Box, L. (1987) Experimenting cultivators: a methodology for adaptive agricultural research. Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension) Network Discussion Paper 23. London: Overseas Development Institute (ODI).
Brokensha, D., D.M. Warren and O. Werner (eds) (1980) Indigenous knowledge systems and development. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.
Chambers, R., A. Pacey and L.A. Thrupp (eds) (1989) Farmer first: farmer innovation and agricultural research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Farrington, J. and A. Martin (1987) Farmer participatory research: a review of concepts and practices. Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension) Network Discussion Paper 19. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Fujisaka, S. (1989) 'A method for farmer-participatory research and technology transfer: upland soil conservation in the Philippines', Experimental Agriculture 25:423-433.
Fujisaka, S. (1990) 'Rainfed lowland rice: building research on farmer practice and technical knowledge', Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 33:57- 74.
Fujisaka, S. (1991) 'What does 'build research on farmer practice' mean? Rice crop establishment (beusani) in eastern India as an illustration', Agriculture and Human Values 8(1,2):93-98.
Fujisaka, S. (1993) 'A case of farmer adaptation and adoption of contour hedgerows for soil conservation', Experimental Agriculture 29:97-105.
Harrington, L.H. and R. Tripp (1984) Recommendation domains: a framework for on-farm research. CIMMYT Economics Working Paper 02/84. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.
International Rice Research Institute (1975) Annual Report for 1974. Los Banos: IRRI.
Khan, A.U., F.E. Nichols and B. Duff (1971) Semi-annual progress report no 12. Unpublished. Los Banos: IRRI, Agricultural Engineering Department.
Matlon, P., R. Cantrell, D. King and M. Benoit-Cattin (eds) (1984) Farmers' participation in the development of technology: coming full circle. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
Rhoades, R. and R. Booth (1982) 'Farmer-back-to-farmer: a model for generating acceptable agricultural technology', Agricultural Administration 11:127- 37.
Rhoades, R.E. (1987) Farmers and experimentation. Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension) Network Discussion Paper 21. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Richards, P. (1985) Indigenous agricultural revolution. London: Century Hutchinson.
Sagar, D. and J. Farrington. (1988) Participatory approaches to technology generation: from the development of methodology to wider-scale implementation. Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension) Network Paper 2. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Thurston, H.D. (1990) 'Plant disease management practices of traditional farmers', Plant Disease 74(2):96-102.
Warren, D.M. and K. Cashman. (1988) Indigenous knowledge for sustainable agriculture development. Gatekeeper series SA10. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.