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

assets). Patterns of food consumption by farmers within a one-year period were
taken into consideration to assess the impact of the new technology on nutrition.
A pooled t-test was used to determine whether the differences in crilorie and
protein-consuniption levels in the tn.0 groups were significantly different.
Productivity anal3sis
RESULTS AKD DISCUSSION
Group averages of far~ner characteristics (i.e., age, number of years of schooling,
and size of the farm family) of adopters and nonadopters in both study areas fell
into narrow ranges. This indicated tllrit there was ho~nogensity between the two
oroups of farnlers in the tu.0 areas (Table 2). An average farmer was about 52-54 yr
Eld, had about 4-7 yr of schooling, and supported a krinily of 5-6 members. Although
the years of farming experience of adopters was nun~erically higher (about 32 yr)
than nonadopters (25 yr), both groups had spent sufficiently long periods in
agricultural production to fully understand their far111 practices. Therefore, a
significant difference in production patterns of the tulo groups is highly unlikely to
be induced by social background.
The averxge farm size of an aclopter (0.81 ha) was ljigger than that of a
nonadopter (0.76 ha). The average lo\vland size (0.42 ha) of adopters was also
bigger than that of nonadopters (0.40 ha). Nonadoptsrs had larger highlands (0.40
ha) than adopters (0.39 ha). hlajority of farmers in both groups had land holdings
below 0.7 ha. Less than one-third of the farmers had land holdings larger than 1.0
ha, and a slightly higher percentage of adopters owned holdings in this category.
The distribution of loiipland by tenurial arrangement revealed that 42% of
adopters and 43% of nonadopters were owner-operators (Table 3). Only a small
percentage of farmers did not own lo\vlands. The f:irmers who did not own lands
accounted for 22%- in the nonadopter group and 217c in the adopter group. Some
farmers operated their o\4.n lowlands as \veil as some lowl:inds owned by others
(3770 of adopter farniers and 33% of no11:idopters). Ollly s small percentage of
farmers in each group did not own hig1il;inds. Both adopters and non:ldopters
operate \.cry slnall holdings and more than h;llf of them are tenants. There is no
substantial difference betn~een land ownership or tenurial patterns of aclopters and
nonadopters.
Input use in crop cullivntion in lowlnncis
First-season rice cultivatiot~. Analysis of the first-season rice crop presents some
interesting results. The cost of agrocheniicals used was significantly higher for
nonadopters than adopters (Table 4). Although preharvest 1:ibor used was not
different between the two groups of farmers, adopters used less labor for nursery
and land preparation and Inore lrtbor for weeding. These differences can be
attributed to land preparation using ani111;ll power or tractors.