systems research - the IDRC Digital Library - International ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Soil analysis The soil was analyzed to determine if changes in mineral components or soil texture might have affected the growth and yield of rice grown after mungbean. The field was classified into three areas: high terrace, middle terrace, and low terrace. In March 1991, 90 soil samples from the plots of mungbean - rice (30 samples per terrace) and 30 soil sam les from the plots of fallow - rice (10 samples per terrace) were collected P or soil analysis. Table 10 suggests that organic matter (OM), P, and K in the mungbean - rice cropping pattern were higher than in the fallow - rice pattern. The results from on-farm trials conducted in 1986-88 indicated that rice yields in the mungbean - rice cropping pattern were higher (3.75 t/ha) than those in fallow - rice pattern (3.3 t/haj (Nichai and Rasamee 1991). Expansion of direct (dry) seeded rice The UNDP/FAO project reported that there had been an expansion of DSR (i.e., 1,484 ha in five provinces, of which 1,276 ha were in Phayao in 1985-86) (Table 11). In 1989, there was hardly any DSR areas in Phayao. Field researchers who introduced mungbean before rice and DSR in 1982 attributed the shift to TPR to good rainfall In 1986-88. DSR reenierged in 1990 on about 160 ha because of late rains in 1989. However, in 1991, 163 households (about 419 ha) adopted DSR. Many farmers ordered mechanical seeders and some went as far as Sukothai, a province approximately 300 km away, to purchase these machines. Interviews with farmers in Dok Kham Tai revealed that the readoption of DSR in 1990-91 was due to the increased wage rate during transplanting. Some reported wage rates as high as THB100/d. This was nearly 7070 higher than the average wage rate in other districts and in other periods of the year. The normal wage rate was THBGO-70/d. High wage rates were associated with delays in rainfall. When the rains come, the rush to transplant rice as early as possible creates stiff competition for labor and produces high wage rates. The labor requirement to transplant seedlings is about 19-31 d/ha. This is eq~iivalent to 26-39 d of hired labor for an average farm (or approxin~ately THB2,500-4,000). However, if DSR is adopted and mechanical seeders are used, an average farmer would need 2 d to complete crop establishment. The cost of a seeder (THB6,OOO) could therefore be recovered in 2 yr. Farmers in areas where seeders are scarce hired seeders at THB188/ha. Many farmers would like to grow DSR on all of their land bzcause it is less costly. Given the rainfall pattern, farmers who adopted mungbean before rice found it difficult tu establish DSR in August because the soil was usually too wet. The mechanical seeder clogged easily. Late onset of rainfall rlelays the mungbean crop and makes establishment of DSR almost impossible. A cut-off date for mungbean should therefore be established if DSR is to be successfully implemented. Some farmers purposely plowed their mungbean crops in early August before it was fully harvested to make way for DSR. In 1991, when the
price of mungbean was high, some farmers wondered whether they had made the correct decision. The limited number of mechanical seeders was also a problem. In 1990, FSRI had only three units in tambon San Koang. There was long waiting lists for the use of these machines that year. In 1991, 16 more machines were purchased. Large farm owners purchased their own mechanical seeders. Small- and average- size farm owners hired machines (with operators TEIBZOO/d; without operators THBlSOId). With the use of a one hand tractor, about 1.6 ha of land can be covered in a day. Although the availability of seeders improved in 1991, farmers still had to reserve the machines and wait for their turn. Currently, many farmers make provisions for doing either DSR or TPR. They prepare rice nurseries alongside the plots prepared for direct seeding. This strategy provides a hedge against possible delays in transplanting if DSR cannot be established. If direct seeding is possible, they can still sell their seedlings to other farmers. In a follow-up interview after the rice han-est in 1991, it was found that the business of renting seeders was becoming popular. Some farmers talked about purchasing additional seeders merely for this purpose. The 19 seeders in the area were shared by 163 farm households in 1991 (i.e., an a\.erage 22 ha per seeder). Farmers in the other tci)~lho)rs are also interested in the machines. Information on yield, costs, and gross margin of DSR were also collected. Only a few farmers were surveyed in 1990 because the practice was just being revived when the impact study was about to end. h4ost of the information concerning DSR in Dok Kham Tai in 1990-91 was obtained through informal interviews. Yields from TPR and DSR were comparable among small and medium farms (i.e., 2,588-2,688 kg/ha for DSR and 2,625 kg/ha for TPR). The weed problem in DSR was more common and severe than in TPR. This was one reason why farmers were slow to adopt DSR. The early adopters of DSR experienced severe weed problems. Farmers, ho\+.ever, minimized yield loss caused by weeds by more tt~orough land preparation (repeated tillage) and by alternating DSR and TPR. Among mungbean adopters, yields of TPR averaged 3,-t 19 kg,/ha in 1988. This was higher than the average output of DSR. Costs per hectare were also higher. Gross margin (excluding farm labor) was TFIB8,706/ha compared with THB5,331/ha for DSR. Gross margin (including farm labor) for TPR was THB7,581/ha but only THB3,700/ha for DSR. However, the Iligher yields and gross margins for TPR compared with DSR are not conclusive becalise yields were obtained during different periods.
Page 1 and 2:
IRRl DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES NO. 15
Page 3 and 4:
RECEIVED I RECU .- r b :'.i!~atlon
Page 5 and 6:
Welcome address S .P.R. Weerasinghe
Page 7 and 8:
Welcome Address S. P. R. Weerasingh
Page 9 and 10:
Opening Comments After 15 yr of far
Page 11 and 12:
increased as well, but only nlargin
Page 13 and 14:
esult in high incomes for farmers,
Page 15 and 16:
Investor concerns Usually investors
Page 17 and 18:
WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES This workshop i
Page 19 and 20:
Rice is the major food crop and die
Page 21 and 22:
esource use and productivity varies
Page 23 and 24:
Determination of ado,)tion factors
Page 25 and 26:
number of active family members per
Page 27 and 28:
At both sites, more than 73% of the
Page 29 and 30:
Hossain A M, Nur-E-Elahi, Nazrul I
Page 31 and 32:
Table 2. Crop varietal sequence sco
Page 33 and 34:
Table 4. Correlation illatsix used
Page 35 and 36:
- Table 6. Socioeconomic characteri
Page 37 and 38:
Table 8. Extent of adoption and ave
Page 39 and 40:
Table 10. Resource use and producti
Page 41 and 42:
Table 12. Extent of adoption and di
Page 43 and 44:
Table 14. Summary of per hectare ca
Page 45 and 46:
IRlPACT OF FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH
Page 47 and 48:
new information collected during FS
Page 49 and 50:
average family owns seven heads of
Page 51 and 52:
H Horticulture. To have a more regu
Page 53 and 54:
improved varieties require higher l
Page 55 and 56:
The types of the training provided
Page 57 and 58:
extension agency in the district, t
Page 59 and 60:
m Extension and other production-su
Page 61 and 62:
Table 3. Farm characteristics of th
Page 63 and 64:
Table 6. Farm practices and product
Page 65 and 66:
Table 8. Major crops, crop varietie
Page 67 and 68: Table 10. Production and use of mil
Page 69 and 70: Table 13. Major problems and constr
Page 71 and 72: Table 15. Training undergone by the
Page 73 and 74: Table 17. Links between farmers and
Page 75 and 76: ----l CROP SUBSYSlLM rnurt L OTT tb
Page 77 and 78: West Java provincial le~el BACKGROU
Page 79 and 80: OBJECTIVES The specific objectives
Page 81 and 82: Labor requirement Labor requirement
Page 83 and 84: system models. This indicated that
Page 85 and 86: Unit prices for all items were obta
Page 87 and 88: Price elasticity. The demand for al
Page 89 and 90: district fishery extension services
Page 91 and 92: Table 2. Production of freshwater f
Page 93 and 94: Table 4. Level of inputs used in ea
Page 95 and 96: Table 6. Labor requirement for each
Page 97 and 98: able 8. Income analysis of each FS
Page 99 and 100: Table 10. Nonfood expenditure patte
Page 101 and 102: Table 12. The value of assets (IRP
Page 103 and 104: Table 15. Nonfood expenditure patte
Page 105 and 106: Table 17. Elasticities of food comm
Page 107 and 108: l Oct k Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Page 109 and 110: From 1980 to 1986, the Integrated R
Page 111 and 112: THE 1'\VO ;MATURE TECHNOLOGIES Dire
Page 113 and 114: Conceptual framework STUDY METHODS
Page 115 and 116: Tai. Mungbean was introduced in Dok
Page 117: Land preparation for rice. The reac
Page 121 and 122: manufacturers. The earlier models (
Page 123 and 124: Net farm income per household The a
Page 125 and 126: that although adopters were better
Page 127 and 128: W It produced a good stand of rice
Page 129 and 130: Table l. The promising technologies
Page 131 and 132: Table 3. Mungbean before rice areas
Page 133 and 134: Table 5. Number of farm households
Page 135 and 136: Table 7. Area planted to mungbean,
Page 137 and 138: Table 9. Area planted to mungbean,
Page 139 and 140: Table 11. Area under dry seeded ric
Page 141 and 142: continued.. . Table 12. Socioeconom
Page 143 and 144: continued.. . Table 12. Socioeconom
Page 145 and 146: l~ndicative figures only. '~ature t
Page 147 and 148: composition, increases in income ca
Page 149 and 150: not be captured if the criteria for
Page 151 and 152: crops (rice, maize, and mungbean) a
Page 153 and 154: The explanatory Lwiable, nitrogen (
Page 155 and 156: of the ratio of actual intake and r
Page 157 and 158: Farming Systems Research and Extens
Page 159 and 160: Table 3. Input levels and productiv
Page 161 and 162: Table 5. Comparison of annual house
Page 163 and 164: Table 7. Comparison of annual nonfo
Page 165 and 166: Table 9. Comparison of percentage p
Page 167 and 168: Table 11. Log-linear models of impa
Page 169 and 170:
INSTITUTIONALIZING THE FARILIIIVG S
Page 171 and 172:
agricultural production system by i
Page 173 and 174:
In the midwest plain, where there a
Page 175 and 176:
Varietal irnprovernent. This compon
Page 177 and 178:
solutions to problems under the bas
Page 179 and 180:
Table 2. Rice farming systems in Ca
Page 181 and 182:
Table 5. Component-technology studi
Page 183 and 184:
Wangwacharachul (1984) examined the
Page 185 and 186:
household basis on an income and ex
Page 187 and 188:
first crop. In 1989-90, the adopter
Page 189 and 190:
Nonfarm expenses constituted the bu
Page 191 and 192:
Herbicide is essential for DSR. How
Page 193 and 194:
o The classification of farmers on
Page 195 and 196:
Table 1. List of \,ariables idc~l~l
Page 197 and 198:
Table 3. Conlparison of cash flow o
Page 199 and 200:
Table 5. Level of input use for the
Page 201 and 202:
Table 7. Production elasticities of
Page 203 and 204:
FROXl GREEN REVOLUTION TO FARhlING
Page 205 and 206:
ainfed areas. The RIARS project app
Page 207 and 208:
stability and sustainability. 1nsti
Page 209 and 210:
o Limited feedback at all levels. A
Page 211 and 212:
Table l. Chronological sequcnce of
Page 213 and 214:
Table l. Chronological sequence of
Page 215 and 216:
Impact studies A number of studies
Page 217 and 218:
some simple statistical tests to as
Page 219 and 220:
assets). Patterns of food consumpti
Page 221 and 222:
Production functions for first-seas
Page 223 and 224:
and nonadopters indicate that there
Page 225 and 226:
E~zdowr~tcnt of l~ouselrol~f assets
Page 227 and 228:
variety, inadequate attention was p
Page 229 and 230:
Table 1. Farming system research si
Page 231 and 232:
Table 4. Comparison of levels of in
Page 233 and 234:
Table-6. Compariso~i of le\.els of
Page 235 and 236:
Table 9. Estimated production funct
Page 237 and 238:
Table 11. Factor shares of first-se
Page 239 and 240:
Table 13. Factor slirlres of third-
Page 241 and 242:
Table 15. Endownlent of farm assets
Page 243 and 244:
IAIPACT ASSESShlEhT OF FARMING SYST
Page 245 and 246:
Depending on the adequacy of rainfa
Page 247 and 248:
Demograpllic cllaractehtics. The co
Page 249 and 250:
The major farm implements owned by
Page 251 and 252:
Effect of RWCS on household cash fl
Page 253 and 254:
Table 1. Average cash expenses per
Page 255 and 256:
Table 5. Selected clia~~acteristics
Page 257 and 258:
Table 7. Comparative pcrforinance o
Page 259 and 260:
hiem bers Discussion and Recommenda
Page 261 and 262:
Guideline 4: FSR impact projects sh
Page 263 and 264:
hlem bers o The need to improve doc
Page 265 and 266:
Members what is right depends on po
Page 267 and 268:
Decentralization and farming system
Page 269 and 270:
o More program and less project fun
Page 271 and 272:
Bangladesh Mr. RaGqul Islam Banglad
Page 273 and 274:
Dr. N.F.C. Ranawecru Di\ision of .-
Page 275 and 276:
CFTSSF CLSU CSD CSSAC CVIADP CVRP-I
Page 277 and 278:
PIADP PCA PCARRD PHARLAP PSC PTA RA
Page 279 and 280:
Production Team Editor : Michael Gr
show all

systems research - the IDRC Digital Library - International ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?