Working with smallholder farmers for increased rice productivity: The Sulawesi experience

7/31/2019 Working with smallholder farmers for increased rice productivity: The Sulawesi experience

1/60

Presentation Title Goes Here

presentation subtitle.

Working with Smallholder Farmers forIncreased Rice Productivity: The

Sulawesi Experience

Madonna C. Casimero

CESD-IRRI


2/60


3/60

Indonesia

Third worlds largest rice producer

240 million people with per capita consumption of 140kg/yr, population increasing by 1.4% 25, 000 to 35,000 ha lost each yr mostly in Java

Challenge to increase productionwith marginal increases in area planted


4/60

National Rice Production Special Program (P2BN) to

increase rice production by 5% annually

Increase productivity in areas whereproduction has stagnated


5/60

1. THE SMALLHOLDER RICEFARMERS IN SULAWESI


6/60

Majority own lessthan a hectare of rice farm

Most are resourcepoor

Have low yield and

productivity

How can we help them?


7/60


8/60

Constraints to adoption

Limited availability of information aboutcrop managementoptions

Lack of extensionresources

Low level of activitywithin farmer groups Rice field in Awolagading, Sulawesi,

2008


9/60

Constraints to adoption

Lack of experienceand knowledge onhow new technologiesmay contribute toincome generation

Lack of capital to

invest in theseoptions


10/60

2.THE SMAR PROJECTSmallholder Market Driven Adaptive Research (SMAR)


11/60

Focused on helping the South & SoutheastSulawesi farmers adopt and use new & emergingNRM technologies

The SMAR project


12/60

Objectives

1. Identify, locally-adapt & evaluate cropmanagement practices that will profitably increaserice productivity by >10%.

2. Develop pathways to support uptake of better crop management practices.


13/60

3. HOW DID WE WORK WITHTHE FARMERS?


14/60

The way to bring science to

farmers Farmers are actively involved in defining

o what needs to be doneo why it is doneo how is it done, including adaptation and integration

Farmers are active partners, not passive recipients of technologies


15/60

BUILDINGPARTNERSHIPS

Stakeholder Meeting

Networkingand

Linkaging

LEARNING FROMTHE FARMERS

Site and Farmer characterization

RiceProductionTechnologyScanning

Constraint and Alternative Mgt

ID andPrioritization

LEARNING

WITH THEFARMERS

Benchmarking of ProductionConstraints

AdaptiveResearch Trials

HELPINGFARMERS HELP

THEMSELVES

Training of province-basedextension staff

Training of Farmers (FFS,

etc)

Farmer

Groups

Field days

and Cross visits

Info and Com

Support

Field

Exercises

ADAPTIVE TRIALS

Farmer feedback,evaluation and

planning

Adapted RiceProductionTechnologies

Extension andScaling Out

SMAR Project Adaptive Management Process


16/60

A. BUILDING PARTNERSHIPSWHO TO WORK WITH AND WHERETO WORK


17/60

Highest potential to benefitfrom skills, knowledge and thetechnologies can offer

Questions: Who are our local partners Where are we likely to have

impact What do we have to offer Who would benefit most


18/60

Local partners

Indonesian Center for Rice Research BPTP South Sulawesi and Southeast Sulawesi

District Agriculture Office, Bone and Konawe Farmer groups in the 4 villages

BPTP- Balai Penkajian Teknologi Pertanian


19/60

South Sulawesi(Sulsel)

Southeast Sulawesi(Sultra)

Treatment village 1. Awolagading2. Ujung Tanah

1. Bendewuta2. Karandu

Control village 1. Tellongeng

2. Mappalo Ulaweng

1. Kulahi

2. Lamokuni


20/60

B. LEARNING FROM THEFARMERSPARTICIPATORY DIAGNOSIS


21/60

Participatory appraisaland diagnosis

- First step in engagingfarmers to actively

participate in searchingways to improve their farming systems


22/60

Meet with farmers to: Characterize the site Learn the rice production

practices and farming

systems Identify and prioritize

problems Identify possible solutions

to the problems Agree and develop a plan whento start working and searchingfor technology options


23/60

Problem = Low yieldsEffects = low income, food insecurity, etc


24/60

Agronomic constraints and entry

technologies/possible solutions in Sulsel Constraint

o Limited water availabilityand access

o Insect pests, weedso High fertilizer cost and

poor nutrientmanagement

Entry technology/possible solution

o Alternate wetting anddrying for water saving

o Reduce insecticideapplication by practicingIPM

o Apply the right herbicidefor problem weedso Site-specific nutrient

management


25/60

Agronomic constraints and entry

technologies/possible solutions in Sultra Constraint

o Rodentso High cost of fertilizers

and poor nutrientmanagement

o Insect pests, weedso Excess water in wet

season (WS), limitedwater in dry season (DS)

Entry technology/possible solution

o Community action againstrodents

o Site-specific nutrientmanagement

o Reduce insecticide

application by practicingIPMo Apply the right herbicide

for problem weedso AWD for dry season


26/60

3. LEARNING WITH THE FARMERSBENCHMARKING AND ADAPTIVERESEARCH


27/60

Searching for solutions

Do benchmarking Search for a broad range of solutions

Offer basic ingredients of technology options NOT apackage of technology Decide which options to test Test possible options in the field with the farmers


28/60

Benchmarking to verify field constraints to quantify losses to quantify benefits from

new options Yield loss due to weeds

Stem borer

monitoringEcology and biology of rodents


29/60

Observations

Farmers lost 2-20% of yields due to grass weeds Low (3-8%) stemborer damage in 3 villages except

Bendewuta (14%) in 2009 WS Rattus argentiventer caused 30-100% damage in >50

ha in Karandu in 2009 DS and WS All 16 fields were deficient in N, and P, and 14 were

deficient in K.


30/60

Adaptive research - Testing the options

1. Start small2. Keep the trials simple3. Encourage farmers to play with the options 4. Make a comparison with the current practice of farmers5. Testing can be done in one field (replicated) or several

farmers fields or both 6. Gather simple data that can show the difference

Guiding principles


31/60

Testing the options

Support provided1. Material needed for the

technology (eg: water tube for AWD)

2. Key technical information onNRM option3. Help farmers establish the trial4 . Regular monitoring and

teaching farmers to gather simple data

5 . Help in solving simple fieldproblems

Adaptation of AWD as water saving technology


32/60

Alternate Wetting and Drying IrrigationManagementPractice

Grain Yield (t/ha) Irrigation

events/season a

DS 2009(n=10)

DS 2010(n=10)

DS 2009 DS 2010

Alternate wetting and

drying 4.62 5.30 0-2 0-2

Farmers practice 4.28 4.90 3-4 1-7

5% LSD 0.51 ns 0.27 * - -

No yield penalty with AWD; income increased by Rp600,000 to 1,800,000.

a Rains occurred in the DS. In a DS where there is no rain, farmers irrigated the rice field12-14 timesns= not significant, * Significant at P


33/60

Fertilizer

ManagementPractice

Grain Yield (t/ha) Benefit-Cost Ratio

2009 WS(n=12)

2009-2010DS (n=15)

2009 WS 2009-2010DS

Nutrient Mgr 4.86 5.45 2.27 3.12

PuTS (Soiltest kit)

5.27 5.24 2.03 2.95

Farmer Practice

4.79 5.21 2.17 2.92

LSD (5%) 0.55 ns 0.65 ns - -

2009 wet seasonNM= 61-17-15 kg NPK/haPuTS = 112-32-30 kg NPK/haFarmer Practice = 83-20-25 kg NPK/ha

2009-2010 dry seasonNM = 79-28-24 kg NPK/haPuTS = 114-33-30 kg NPK/haFarmer Practice = 75-27-24 kgNPK/ha

Nutrient Manager

ns= not significant


34/60

IRRI drum seeder and better herbicides

Herbicides

Grain Yield (t/ha)Yield difference

with Farmer practice (t/ha)

Increase in Income(Rp/ha)**

IRRI Drumseeder

Farmer Seeder IRRI DS

Farmer seeder

IRRI Drumseeder

Farmer Seeder

Penoxulam 6.7 6.8 1.7 1.5 5,100,000 4,500,000

Fenoxaprop 5.2 5.5 0.2 0.2 600,000 600,000

2,4-D (Farmer

practice)5.0 5.3

** Price of 1 kg dry paddy is Rp 3,000

IRRI drum seeder used 40 to 70 kg/ha less seeds than thefarmer seeder


35/60

Planning meeting and feedback

Purposes1. Report back the results of field

trials2. Farmer cooperators share

their experiences and theoptions selected

3. Ask other farmers who wouldwant to test the promising

options4. Plan for the next season

activitiesImportant :Develop trust so that farmers feel

comfortable and be open


36/60

Crop Season 1

FieldProblem

Benchmarking

AdaptiveTrials

Water

Stem borer Rodents Nutrient mgt Weeds

Crop season 2

Field Problem Bench-marking

AdaptiveTrials

Training CommunicationMaterial Devt

Water ICM

Stem borer FFS

Rodents Community Action

in Rodent mgtposter

Nutrientmgt

4

Weedsvillages Direct seeding

poster

Seasonal Progression of Activities

At 3 rd cropping season, farmers began to establish at least 1 ICMplot and 2 single component NRM demo plots in addition to other field activities


37/60

Evaluating the options

Farmers make criticaldecisions

o Benefitso Problems encounteredo Ways to use

technology on larger scale

It is important to understandhow farmers select or reject

technologies


38/60

ManagementOption

What makes the optiondifficult to adopt?

Suggested adaptationmeasures

1. AWD 1) High cost of PVC for the water tube

2) Difficult to read water level from top of tube;

complicated for somefarmers

1) Use local material (bamboo)2) Read from bottom. Put (+) or

(-) in bamboo stick markings;(+) if water level is above soil

surface, (-) if below.

2. IRRIdrumseeder

1) 6 drums too manyand too long

2) Heavy when filledwith seeds

3) Some parts notdurable

1) Reduce drums to 42) Fill drums to 50 -75% capacity3) Reinforce or change weak

parts


39/60

Adaptations done

Water tube


40/60

IRRI drumseeder

Farmer seeder


41/60

Integrating promising technology options

Farmers find ways tointegrate options they findsuitable for their farms

Provide ideas andtechnical information

Encourage them toinnovate

Facilitate exchange of ideas and experiences

Help them overcomebottle-necks

Support to farmers


42/60

Demonstrating the adapted NRM

Integrated NRMSingle technology


43/60

Crop MgtOption

Integrated

No. offarmers

Farmsize (ha)

Base yield(t/ha)

Yield afterapplying

new practice(t/ha)

%increase

in yield

2010 DrySeason

Nutrient, weed,

water, IPM

8 0.75 3.4 6.3 84

Water, nutrient 1 0.16 4.6 5.5 20

Weed, water 2 1.00 2.0 3.8 44

Nutrient, IPM 5 1.00 3.2 4.5 41

Weed, IRRIdrum seeder

5 1.00 4.00 4.4 10

water 3 0.24 4.6 5.4 17

nutrient 12 0.93 3.1 4.8 55

Total 36


44/60

D. HELPING FARMERS HELPTHEMSELVESEnhancing skills of extension staff andfarmers


45/60

Trainings of extension staff

Update knowledge onnew technology options

Improve skills on

adaptive managementand field research

Enhance skills astrainers of farmers

Not to instruct but tofacilitate


46/60

Farmer Field Schools

Season long trainingactivity that takesplace in the field

Learning technologyoptions by experience

Adaptive researchplots are the learningfields


47/60

4. RESULTS AND OUTCOMES


48/60

Improvement in Yield

Sulsel

0 2 4 6

DS08-09

WS09

DS09-10

WS10

Yield (t/ha)

NC Ujung

FC Ujung

NC Awo

FC Awo

Sultra

0 2 4 6 8

WS08

DS09

WS10

DS10

Yield (t/ha)

NC Kar

FC Kar

NC Ben

FC Ben

FCs increased their yields by 26-67% in Sulsel and19 to 22 % in Sultra


49/60

Reduction in Input Cost ( 000 Rp)

-200.00

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

Fertilizer Herbicide Insecticide Rodenticide

South Sulawesi

Cooperator Non-cooperator Mean Difference

-300

-200

-100

0100

200

300

400

500

600

Fertilizer Herbicide Insecticide Rodenticide

FCs in Sultra spent significanlty less on fertilizers, insecticides

and rodenticides. (p


50/60

Improvement in Income

Sulsel Sultra

0 5,000 10,000 15,000

2008-09

2010

Income ('000 Rp)

Ujung NC

Ujung FC

Awo NC

Awo FC

0 5,000 10,000 15,000

2008-09

2010

Income ('000 Rp)

Kar NC

Kar FC

Bend NC

Bende FC

FCs increased their income by 70 to >500% in Sulsel and32-36% in Sultra


51/60

Comparison between Project (PV) andControl Villages (CV)

YieldSouth Southeast

PV CV PV CV

Yield(kg/ha) 4016 3273 4353 3094

N 63 24 69 45

Difference 743 1,259

df 85 112

p


52/60

Outcomes and immediate impacts

Improved productivity of farmers by more than 10%

Improved knowledge on NRM

technologies of farmers Farmers are eager to try newtechnologies and not afraid toinnovate

Improved skills and higher confidence of BPTP staff to doadaptive research


53/60

E. SCALING OUT


54/60

Gathering local support

Work with localorganizations andstakeholders

Champions Create a light house

effect - focus villages aslearning centers

Awolagadingin Sulsel


55/60

Field Walks Field Days

Allow farmers to seeprogress of field activities

Farmers share theirexperiences and becomechampions


56/60

Videos

Digital Green video withfarmers

Posters

Direct seeding and rodentmanagement

Direct seeding - http://youtu.be/rqKOgOEwOQA AWD - http://youtu.be/843ho_iC1fISSNM - http://youtu.be/HHo8yQU3gps

Diffusion Pathway


57/60

BPTPs

Demo Farm(light

house )

1. Plan for diffusion2. Curricula for ICM-FFS

on NRM3. Support materials4. Access to BPTP contact

person5. Minimum level of

support

BPPs

Establish mini-light house

Other routes of information1. Rice Knowledge Bank2. Sms phone/web access3. Lodge information at Prima Tani/FEATI

supported extension offices

Farmer field

demo

1. Simple how to protocols 2. Contact person or call back(Traceability of visitors to provide

basis for uptake level)

FARMERS visit

Visits andtraining

y


58/60

BPTP partners implementing ICM-FFSand demo of NRM options

Pinrang, Sulsel South Konawe, Sultra

30 extension staff and 25 farmer leaders trained in 2011


59/60

Lessons learned

Participatory approach in designing, planning andvalidation of technologies and dissemination

Enhance skills and capacity of extension staff andfarmers (men and women)

Anticipate constraints to adoption Sound interaction between natural and social

scientists Establish light houses for adaptation and

demonstration of NRM options Local champions to scale out and scale up


60/60

??

Documents

Working with smallholder farmers for increased rice productivity: The Sulawesi experience