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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Data analysis Financial analysis and econometric procedures were used to measure the impact of the RFFS. IMPACT ON FARMER WELFARE To evaluate the impact of the development of RFFS in the study area, the technology used in each farming system was evaluated. This discussion focused on the inputs used and the outputs achieved (i.e., production of rice and fish, net income earned by the farmer, and food and nonfood expenditure patterns). Inputs The inputs (other than labor) used in each farming system model are presented in Table 4. There were significant differences in the levels of inputs used (TSP fertilizer, herbicides, and insecticides) in both the DS and WS. Lesser amounts of TSP were used in FS I and FS I1 than in FS 111. This indicated that the incorporation of fish, particularly in intercropping, significantly reduced the amount of TSP applied. The fingerling density and rate of TSP a plication recommended by the Sukamandi Research Institute for Food Crops [SURIF) for RFFS were 2,000 fry/ha (weight of 10 g/fry) and 75 kg TSP/ha. The TSP application rate recommended by the extension service was 150 kg/ha. Although the technique of trench construction was adopted, farmers did not adopt the amount of TSP or the fingerling density recommended by SURIF. However, they had adopted the rate of TSP recommended by the extension service, which was twice the rate recommended by the research institute. In the case of fingerlings, the density ranged from 569 to 1,128 fry/ha or about 28.4-56.4% of the recommended rate. The production of fish ranged from 321 to 464 kg/ha (equivalent rice) whereas, the production of fish at the on-farm research site averaged 1,500 kg/ha. Therefore, the transfer of technology from the research institute to the farmers needs to be intensified. The RFFS also reduced the amount of liquid insecticide and herbicide used in FS I and FS I1 in both wet and dry seasons (Table 4). For instance, in 1989-90, RFFS reduced the application of herbicide almost to zero in FS I and FS I1 compared with FS 111, in which about 0.5 liter/ha were applied during the WS and DS. This indicates that the incorporation of fish in rice-based farming systems reduced insect infestation and weed growth. However, further research is required to evaluate the real impact of fish culture on rice production, particularly in relation to chemical inputs.
Labor requirement Labor requirements (men and women) for each activity within the 3 farming system models are presented in Tables 5 and 6. In general, the total number of hours required per hectare in FS I during the WS and DS was relatively higher than that required by FS I1 and FS 111. Men worked in almost all activities, particularly in land preparation, rat hunting, chemical spraying, weeding, and harvesting. Women performed rice planting, weeding, and harvesting. They spent more time in these activities than men. Land preparation for rice farming and rice-fish farming was mostly done using hand tractors, which cost IRP49,000/ha in 1989-90 and IRP63,000/ha in 1990- 91. However, manual labor was also used, particularly to hoe the corner plots of rice and to repair dikes and canals. In 1989-90, the use of labor for land pre aration was reduced. This indicated that cultivation of fish during the third season after two rice seasons) made land preparation easier. Rice and equivalent rice yields The average land size per family in FS I and FS I1 was 0.7 ha, while in FS I11 was 1.1 ha. All yields and incomes were converted into hectares except in the case of fish in the second DS. The formula used was Price of fish Rp/kg of fish equiv kg Equivalent rice = X quantity of fish = X kg fish = Price of rice Rp/kg rice Price The rice yield and total equivalent rice yield in FS I were higher than the yields in FS I1 and FS 111. This result was consistent in 1989-90 and 1990-91. The additional yield from rice - fish farming resulted from both fish production and cultivation of rice. Production figures for FS I, FS 11, and FS 111 are given in Table 7. The increase in rice yield in FS I and FS 11 in the WS may be due to the residual effect of third-season fish cultivated in both farming systems. Furthermore, the high yield of rice in FS I may be due to the biological control of weed and insect infestation. Most of the RFFS areas were relatively less vulnerable to insect infestation and weed problems during the crop years 1989-91 and 1990-91. This was evident from the lower levels of insecticide, herbicide, and labor used for weeding and chemical application, compared with FS 111. In the DS, FS I also produced the highest rice yield. However, the increase of 32% compared with FS 111 in 1989-90 was reduced to 23% in 1990-91. P
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: OBJECTIVES The specific objectives
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?