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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

OBJECTIVES The objective of this study was to measure the impact of the farming systems program (FSP) on the productivity of different farm enterprises and on farm incomes in Pumdi Bhumdi. The specific objectives were to describe the ethnohistory and the existing situation at the Pumdi Bhumdi FSR site; evaluate the adoption of the recommended FSR technologies by farmers; assess the impact of the FSR recommended practices on crop yields, forage and fodder production, and milk production; evaluate the changes in nutritional and educational aspects of the monitored farm families; study the role of agricultural support services in the transfer of FSR recommended technology to farmers; determine the links between the agricultural support services, farmers, and the FSR site coordinator; and identify constraints to adoption of recommended FSR technologies. JUSTIFICATION Many researchers, administrators, and policymakers argue that in spite of heavy investment in agriculture, there has been little impact on farmers. A few researchers have attempted to measure the impact of the FSR program, but they have concentrated only in the Terai region. Technology transfer from one site to another in the hills is a challenge because of the enormous variability in agroecological and socioeconomic conditions of the farmers. Because of the heterogeneity of the farming systems in the hills, technologfi has had an impact only in some areas. However, assessment of the impact of technology on hill farmers has been virtually neglected. This study attempted to determine the degree of adoption of recommended FSR technologies by the hill farmers of Pumdi Bhumdi. METHODOLOGY To achieve these objectives, the study conducted a before and after survey and monitored six intervened and six control farmers. The criteria for selection of these farms included representativeness within the farm-size class, but with the provision that milking buffalo shoulcl be present on the farm. Site selection Extensive farm monitoring on a whole-farm basis was carried out In 1984 at the Pumdi Bhumdi FSR site. This site was proposed for the impact study for several reasons. First, when the CSP began in 1977, cropping systems research (CSR) was initiated at this site. The CSP was followed by the FSR approach in 1985. Therefore, on-farm research had been conducted continuously at this site for the last 13 yr. Second, Pumdi Bhumdi was representative of the western midhills of Nepal. Third, secondary data were available for the site from the previous work of the CSP and
new information collected during FSR work. Fourth, Pumdi Bhumdi was accessible by road at all times of the year. Farmer selection Before monitoring, 18 representative farmers were selected principally on the basis of their landholding (from 0.5 ha to 2.5 ha). The smallest farms (< 0.5 ha) and the largest (>2.5 ha) were excluded to ensure that the farms best represented conditions at Pumdi Bhumdi. Of the 18 farmers, 12 farmers were selected to optimize resource use and focus on the crop-livestock activities on the farm. These farmers were divided into two groups. The FSR activities were concentrated in six farms and included detailed monitoring of existing farming activities. The remaining six farms were only monitored for their existing farming activities and included no intervention. The group of farms with FSR activities was the intervened group and the group with no farming intervention was the control group. The main criteria used to select representative farmers in each group were representativeness of the farm-size class; representative percentage of lowlands and uplands to be able to select farms with mixed land types (at least 20% of each land type); presence of kllarbur-i (pasture land) on which to plant fodder trees; representative number of milking animals (female buffaloes or cows); representative number of family members involved in full-time agriculture; and representative number of those willing to cooperate with the FSR program. The differences between the intervened and control farmers were as follows: B The intervened farmers participated and collaborated in the on-farm trials of the FSR program at the site; whereas, the control farmers neither participated nor collaborated in the on-farm trials; B ?'he intervened farmers were provided with free inputs (e.g., improved seeds, chemical fertilizers, insecticides, and pesticides) for the trials conducted by the FSR program. The performance of these trials was closely monitored and supervised by the FSR staff. These trials were mainly managed by the researchers with the assistance of the intervened farmers. The control farmers did not have access to free inputs from the FSR program and their existing farming activities were monitored without any intervention. B The intervened farmers were provided with technical services, training, and advice on improved farming practices. The control farmers did not have access to these inputs. They learned about improved methods of cultivation and other FSR reco~nmended components (i.e., seeds and technical services) from their neighbors.
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: IRlPACT OF FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH
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 and 118:
Land preparation for rice. The reac
Page 119 and 120:
price of mungbean was high, some fa
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?