Download (2461kB) - University of Greenwich

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Disadvantages with pests and insects ranked high among farmers. This mayreflect experience from OFTs when DSR was combined with early-maturingvarieties such as BR39 (125 days), which exposed the crop to pests, andmay not be true when DSR is used with Swarna, which has a longer fieldduration. Farmers may have found it difficult to separate the effects of usingan early-maturing variety from the effects of using DSR.Rice varietiesPreferences for varietal traits emerged strongly from the farmer evaluation in 2003,when DSR was used in combination with four different varieties (BR31, BR32, BR39,and Swarna). Farmers reacted negatively to BR39 because its short duration (125 days)made it susceptible to pest and insect attack, including rice bug, rats, birds, and ducks(see Box 2). Only BR31 received a favorable reaction from farmers. Farmers likedBR31 because of its high yield, seedling vigor, drought tolerance, better resistanceto pests and disease (sheath blight), and earlier maturity (with DSR), which meant ahigher market price. However, one farmer estimated that BR31 would fetch 2 Tk kg –1less than Swarna because of its coarse grain type. Coarse varieties were also harderto sell because the most widely grown variety, Swarna, was fine-grained and buyerspreferred to buy grain of the same quality in bulk.SharecroppingFarmer evaluations in both 2003 and 2005 provided evidence that sharecropping actedas a disincentive for the adoption of DSR. Sharecroppers were willing to participatein OFTs. Fourteen of the 20 farmers who participated in the 2003 evaluation weretenants, including two pure-tenants, and 15 of the 20 farmers who participated in the2005 evaluation were tenants, including seven pure-tenants. But comments by sharecroppersindicated that they were generally unwilling to adopt DSR because of the fearthat lower yields would result in eviction by their landlord (Box 1). Similarly, of the15 tenant farmers who participated in the farmer evaluation in 2005, six specificallysaid that they would lose their rented land if DSR resulted in lower yields. In contrast,sharecropping was not perceived as a constraint to the adoption of herbicides becausethis protected yields. For example, A pure-tenant renting 0.5 ha used Machete herbicide for T. aman in 2003with his landlord sharing half the cost of the herbicide, but this same tenantwas reluctant to adopt DSR because his landlord was not in favor and he wasafraid of losing his lease (Ramzan Ali, Godagari thana). An owner-tenant renting 3.1 ha paid a fixed rent in kind. He sprayed 2.4 hawith Ronstar but was reluctant to adopt DSR because he was afraid othersmight report to the landlord that he had “no labor” to cultivate rice (GolamQuibria, Nachole thana). A pure-tenant who rented 1.6 ha on a half-share basis in 2003, bore the fullcost of inputs and did not apply herbicide. He wanted to try 0.3 ha with DSRand Ronstar next season. His landlord will not object because they have agood relationship (Abdul Jabbar, Porsha thana).Direct-seeded rice in the High Barind Tract: economics and farmer evaluation 57
Farmers (no.)1412108DSRWet-seededDry-seededHerbicides64202005 2004 2003 2002 2001Fig. 1. Adoption of DSR and herbicides among sampleOFT farmers (n = 20).Grain sterilityInsect damageLabor shortageLack of drum seederLack of knowledgePestsLow yieldRainfallReason0 2 4 6 8 10FarmersFig. 2. Reasons for OFT farmers not trying DSR in own fields, T. aman, 2005.AdoptionFigure 1 shows the adoption of DSR and herbicides among the OFT farmers sampledin the 2005 evaluation. Since 2000, 12 OFT farmers (60%) had adopted herbicidesfor T. aman. In contrast, only four (20%) of the same farmers had tried DSR on theirown fields outside the trial plot. Farmers reported unpredictable rainfall that delayeddry direct seeding, lower yields, and greater damage from pests as the main reasonswhy they had not tested DSR in their own fields (Fig. 2). However, 10 of the 15 OFTfarmers (67%) also reported that they had not tried DSR because of a lack of knowledgeand access to a drum seeder.58 Jabbar et al
Page 2:
Improving AgriculturalProductivity
Page 5:
Bangladeshi experiences with a drum
Page 8:
AcknowledgmentsIRRI is most gratefu
Page 12 and 13:
The High Barind Tract: a challengin
Page 14 and 15:
irrigation across the entire Barind
Page 16: Workshop synthesis
Page 19 and 20: and, with representatives from the
Page 21 and 22: Subsistence pressureLand pressure,
Page 23 and 24: HerbicidesEarlier efforts to introd
Page 25 and 26: volume). PVS is an effective way to
Page 27 and 28: Farmers may use wet-seeded DSR as a
Page 29 and 30: process and distributing HNPV to fa
Page 31 and 32: an NGO, have successfully collabora
Page 34 and 35: Workshop discussionParticipants dis
Page 36 and 37: How can we identify a short-duratio
Page 38 and 39: to fixed tenancy. The implication i
Page 40: Opportunities for improving ricepro
Page 43 and 44: that the reliability and productivi
Page 45 and 46: Table 1. Planting dates, direct-see
Page 47 and 48: Table 2. (A) Mean effect of fertili
Page 49 and 50: Table 5. On-farm trials of a drum s
Page 51 and 52: Upper toposequenceYield (t ha -1 )7
Page 53 and 54: and perennial grasses (e.g., Ischae
Page 56 and 57: Direct-seeded rice in the HighBarin
Page 58: Table 1. Sample selection for costs
Page 61 and 62: Table 4. Variations in weed managem
Page 63 and 64: Table 7. Labor requirements (days h
Page 65: Table 10. Farmer perceptions of dis
Page 69 and 70: able commercially. Other OFT farmer
Page 71: Box 1. Farmers’ comments on DSRPo
Page 74: NotesAuthors’ addresses: M.A. Jab
Page 78 and 79: This paper explores the role of som
Page 80 and 81: (Olsen method, atomic absorption),
Page 82 and 83: Mean biomass (g m −2 )1,000.000Fi
Page 84 and 85: Fig. 3. Log rank abundance of weed
Page 86 and 87: attested by Fig. 2). Diversity in t
Page 88 and 89: Bangladeshi experiences with a drum
Page 90 and 91: Table 1. Grain yield and crop durat
Page 92 and 93: Table 5. Grain yield and growth dur
Page 94 and 95: ACEy = 0.0001x + 0.7089Yield (t ha
Page 96 and 97: Table 11. Partial budget analysis f
Page 98: ConclusionsDirect wet-seeded rice u
Page 101 and 102: A 178% increase in rice production
Page 103 and 104: Table 1. Components of yield gaps d
Page 105 and 106: Table 3. Weed management in Comilla
Page 107 and 108: Table 5. Weed management practices
Page 109 and 110: Table 7. Significance (P H o ) of t
Page 111 and 112: Since 2000, there has been an incre
Page 114 and 115: Identifying varieties for the High
Page 116 and 117:
Table 1. Rice varieties bred by cli
Page 118 and 119:
Table 2. Grain yield advantage of J
Page 120 and 121:
Table 3. Plant height and crop dura
Page 122 and 123:
Table 6. Summary of adoption and sp
Page 124 and 125:
Freeman GH, Perkins J.M. 1971. Envi
Page 126:
Opportunities for improving rabi cr
Page 129 and 130:
Grain yield (t ha -1 )2.0npp1.5LSD
Page 131 and 132:
In each of the plots, numbers of He
Page 133 and 134:
Table 2. Effect of IPM components o
Page 135 and 136:
Unit plot size was 10 10 m and the
Page 137 and 138:
Yield (t ha -1 )5Straw4321GrainP (g
Page 139 and 140:
Nodulation score3AControl Soil Mo P
Page 141 and 142:
even at low levels of production. B
Page 144 and 145:
Integration of chickpea and other r
Page 146 and 147:
Grain yield (t ha -1 )3.02.51989-99
Page 148 and 149:
Improved Improved Rainfed rainfed C
Page 150 and 151:
Table 1. Preharvest and postharvest
Page 152 and 153:
Greater resistance to Helicoverpa p
Page 154 and 155:
wheat varieties). There is also sco
Page 156 and 157:
Developing seed systems fordissemin
Page 158 and 159:
This paper describes attempts to em
Page 160 and 161:
seed needed to attain the recommend
Page 162 and 163:
introduced to permit sale beyond th
Page 164:
pesticides, inoculation with benefi
Page 168 and 169:
for the rabi crop in 2001. Hence, b
Page 170:
where farmers decided not to relay-
Page 174 and 175:
Table 2. Mean dates of T. aman harv
Page 176 and 177:
Table 4. Subsistence pressure and r
Page 178 and 179:
Table 7. Subsistence pressure and r
Page 180 and 181:
cite the absence of rent as a facto
Page 182 and 183:
abi cropping in the HBT through ear
Page 184 and 185:
Formulation and dissemination ofimp
Page 186 and 187:
in India, for which shorter-duratio
Page 188 and 189:
Applied researchOFTsAdaptive resear
Page 190 and 191:
Table 1. Recommended package of pra
Page 192 and 193:
Table 2. Grain yields (kg ha -1 ) o
Page 194 and 195:
Table 4. Grain yields (t ha -1 ) of
Page 196 and 197:
Table 6. Mean grain yields (t ha -1
Page 198:
constraints present. This in itself
Page 202 and 203:
Extending rabi cropping in rice fal
Page 204 and 205:
Table 1. Estimates of rice area dur
Page 206 and 207:
Yield (kg ha -1 )1,2001,00080060040
Page 208 and 209:
Future disseminationThrough dialogu
Page 210 and 211:
Direct seeding of rice andopportuni
Page 212 and 213:
Table 1. Time of establishment and
Page 214 and 215:
Table 3. Weed density and biomass a
Page 216 and 217:
than in Central Java and many farme
Page 218 and 219:
Proportion abundance (log scale)Ran
Page 220 and 221:
CAN FIELD BE DRAINED?YesCAN FIELD B
Page 222 and 223:
Johnson DE, Mortimer AM. 2005. Issu
Page 224:
Zhao DL, Atlin GN, Bastiaans L, Spi
show all

Download (2461kB) - University of Greenwich

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

Delete template?

Save as template?