Farmers' Management of Rice Genetic Diversity: A study on enhancing red rices in Bohol, Philippines

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree of Master of Science in Crop Science

Submitted by

Arma Raguindin Bertuso

January 2000 Wageningen University The Netherlands

Supervisors: Prof. Dr. Piet Stam Department of Plant Breeding Dr. Lisa M. Leimar Price Department of Gender Studies

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This work will not be made possible without the help of various people and organizations who provided support in different ways. I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to the following: To the men and women farmers of Campagao, Bohol, especially to the 21 family-respondents, for their hospitality and patience in furnishing the information; To the farmers of Barangay Villarcayo, Bantolinao, Poblacion Vieja, Kauswagan and Campagao who willingly provided the seeds of the rice varieties; To the Netherlands Fellowship Programme, the Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation (CBDC) programme thru the Center for Genetic Resources (CGN) and the Development Fund of Norway for the financial support; To Prof. Dr. Piet Stam of the Plant Breeding Department of the Wageningen University for his supervision, understanding and valuable comments all throughout the study; To Dr. Lisa Price of the Gender Studies Department of the Wageningen University for her valuable insights, critical review and encouragement from the start until the end of the research; To Mrs. Teresita Borromeo who supervised the work during the data collection, provided seeds of modern rice varieties and gave valuable suggestions to improve the research; To Dr. Rob van Treuren of the CGN for his patience and guidance in the conduct of the molecular analysis; To the staff of the CBDC-Bohol programme for allowing me to work in their project site while generously assisting in the preparatory and data collection phase; To the staff and board members of the Southeast Asia Regional Institute for Community Education (SEARICE) for granting the study leave; To the staff and guest workers of the CGN for their assistance and friendliness all through out my stay in the Netherlands; To Dr. Fred van Eeuwijk for his help even at short notices in the statistical analysis of the data;

ii

To Vicky Pailanan who patiently and enthusiastically worked with me during the data collection; To the officials of the Municipality of Bilar through their Mayor, Hon. Ester Galbreath and the Community of Campagao through their Barangay Captain, Mr. Adelo Calamba for allowing me to conduct the research in the area; To Roberto and Gertrudes Remedio for welcoming me to their home during the data collection; To Cesinio and Reynilda Salces for allowing me to use their rice field for the experiment and to rest at their house after hours of work in the field; To all my friends back home (too many to mention) for their unending patience in sending e-mails and writing snail mails that helped me overcome loneliness of being away from home; To my Dutch friends who made my stay in Wageningen pleasant and memorable, especially Hennie and Niek Janssen and the residence of Wolfswaard for warmly welcoming me into their home; To my corridor mates at Haarweg 111 during the course work and Rijnsteeg 5c during the last four months for their camaraderie; To my co-students who shared the ups and downs of working for MSc degree especially to Amina, Corrie and Marla for the tea time sharing of stories and grievances; To Bec and Betty for their company in Wageningen, moral support and prayers in times of uncertainty; To my Filipino friends in Wageningen for their friendship and companionship; To my parents, sisters Ging and Armie, and brothers Kuya Arnor and Arnel for their understanding, support, prayers and faith that inspired me to make it all the way.

iii

ABSTRACT

The study was conducted in an irrigated rice farming community in Bohol, Philippines. The research studied the enhancement of red rices and the selection criteria and selection methods that were used by the Boholano farmers. Moreover, the influence of gender and socioeconomic status on farming families on rice production management, seed management, various selection criteria and methods was documented. The information on the social aspect of the study were gathered using several research tools such as semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, freelisting and time allocation study. Four red rice selections (RC 18selection, 66 puwa, 77 puwa and 36 puwa) were enhanced by from four modern varieties (RC 18, IR 66, RC 10 and IR 36), respectively. These eight varieties were characterized through agro-morphological descriptions by farmers, standard descriptors by the researcher, and molecular analysis (AFLP). In general, results showed varying degrees of similarity between the farmers’ selections and modern varieties. There was also high genetic variation among the farmer’s varieties compared to the modern varieties as shown by the molecular data. This indicated the possibility of introgression between local varieties with red pericarp and the modern varieties which resulted to offtypes that farmers selected and developed as new strains. Gender and socio-economic factors were important consideration in management of diversity because of the varying tasks, roles, needs and responsibilities of farmers. Selection criteria and selection methods were not greatly influenced by gender and socio-economic factors.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1

INTRODUCTION

1

1.1

Background of the study

1

1.2

Research questions and objectives 1.2.1 Research questions 1.2.2 Research objectives 1.2.2.1 Meta objective 1.2.2.2 Specific objectives

3 3 4 4 4

1.3

Significance of the study

5

1.4

Limitations of the study

5

1.5

Organization of the paper

6

2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

8

2.1

Farmers role in genetic diversity management

8

2.2

Gender and local crop development

10

2.3

Influence of farmers socio-economic status on local crop development

12

2.4

Relationship between gender, socio-economic status and farmers’ management of genetic diversity

14

3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

17

3.1

Research approach 3.1.1 Preparatory phase 3.1.2 Research phase 3.1.3 Post-research phase

17 18 19 19

3.2

Methodology 3.2.1 Sampling 3.2.2 Research tools 3.2.3 Field experimentation 3.2.4 Molecular analysis

20 20 21 25 26

v

3.3

Data analysis 3.3.1 Qualitative analysis 3.3.2 Quantitative analysis

28 28 29

4

RESEARCH AREA AND RESPONDENTS

31

4.1

The country profile 4.1.1 Geographical location and topography 4.1.2 Climate 4.1.3 Population 4.1.4 Socio-economic status 4.1.5 Agricultural situation 4.1.6 Gender roles

31 31 31 33 33 33 35

4.2.

The province of Bohol 4.2.1 Location and topography 4.2.2 Climate 4.2.3 Population 4.2.4 Agricultural situation 4.2.5 Socio-economic status

36 36 36 37 37 38

4.2

The community of Campagao, Bilar 4.3.1 Location and topography 4.3.2 Demography data 4.3.3 Social structure

38 38 38 39

4.3

Respondents profile 4.4.1 Basic information 4.4.2 Household information 4.4.3 Land ownership

41 41 43 44

5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

45

5.1

Farming system and genetic diversity 5.1.1 Crops and varieties 5.1.2 Rice production and management

45 45 47

5.2

Gender relations and local crop development 5.2.1 Gender and rice varieties 5.2.2 Gender and division of labor and tasks 5.2.2.1 Crop production and management 5.2.2.2 Seed management 5.2.3 Gender and decision-making 5.2.3.1 Crop production and management 5.2.3.2 Seed management

54 54 60 60 65 67 67 68

vi

5.3

5.4

5.5

Socio-economic status influence in crop management and development 5.3.1 Socio-economic status, resources and rice varieties 5.3.2 Influence of socio-economic status to crop production and management 5.3.3 Influence of socio-economic status on seed management

77

Seed selection criteria and methods used by Boholano farmers 5.4.1 Farmer’s seed selection criteria 5.4.2 Farmer’s selection methods

79 79 88

71 71 71

Red rice diversity and the Boholano farmers 5.5.1 An overview of the importance of red rice and its diversity 5.5.1.1 Characterization data from farmers 5.5.1.2 Characterization data from researcher 5.5.1.3 Molecular data 5.5.2 Farmers knowledge and skills in enhancing red rices : three cases of farmer-selectors 5.5.2.1 Mang Bernardo 5.5.2.2 Mang Cesinio 5.5.2.3 Mang Margarito

104 104 105 106

5.6

Establishing the link between farmers’ management of genetic diversity, gender and socio-economic status

108

6

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

113

REFERENCES

91 91 92 94 96

115

vii

List of Tables Table 1. The respondent’s personal characteristics

41

Table 2. Sources of income of the respondents

43

Table 3. Household information

44

Table 4. Information on respondents agricultural land ownership 44 Table 5. List of crops and varieties planted by the respondents

46

Table 6. Number of varieties known and identified by men and women farmers during the focus group discussion

54

Table 7. Free-list salience index test results indicating the order and frequency of mention of rice varieties by women respondents

56

Table 8. Free-list salience index test results indicating the order and frequency of mention of rice varieties by men respondents

58

Table 9. Gender differentiated tasks in rice production and management according to 15 male respondents during focus group discussion

62

Table 10. Gender differentiated tasks in rice production and management according to 17 female respondents during focus group discussion

63

Table 11. Perception of men and women farmers on the percent labor contribution of household member and hired laborers in rice production and management

64

Table 12. Results of the focus group discussion on who was responsible in seed management among male and female farmers

66

Table 13. Perception of men and women farmers on who decided on what variety to plant

68

Table 14. Perception of men and women farmers on who decided where to select the seeds from individual semi-structured interviews

69

Table 15. Results of the focus group discussion on who decided in seed management among men and women farmers

69

Table 16. Number of varieties known and identified by the three socio-economic groups

71

Table 17. Gender differentiated tasks in rice production and management according to 8 low socio-economic group respondents during focus group discussion

73

viii

Table 18. Gender differentiated tasks in rice production and management according to 11 middle socio-economic group respondents during focus group discussion

74

Table 19. Gender differentiated tasks in rice production and management according to 9 high socio-economic respondents during focus group discussion

75

Table 20. Perception of the different socio-economic groups on the contribution of household members and hired laborers in rice production and management during semi-structured interview

76

Table 21. Perception of the different socio-economic groups on who decided on what variety to plant during semi-structured interview

76

Table 22. Results of the focus group discussion on who was responsible in seed management among men and women farmers of the different socio-economic groups

77

Table 23. Results of the focus group discussion on who decided in seed management among men and women farmers of the different socio-economic groups

78

Table 24. Perception of the different socio-economic groups on who decided where to select the seeds for planting material

78

Table 25. List of selection criteria and their rank according to farmers’ preference from focus group discussion

81

Table 26. Spearman’s rank correlation between the selection criteria used by gender and socio-economic groups

82

Table 27. Top 10 varieties and characteristics as described by males respondents

83

Table 28. Top 10 varieties and characteristics as described by females respondents

84

Table 29. Top 10 varieties and characteristics as described by high socio-economic group respondents

85

Table 30. Top 10 varieties and characteristics as described by middle socio-economic group respondents

86

Table 31. Top 10 varieties and characteristics as described by low socio-economic group respondents

87

Table 32. Monomorphic and polymorphic bands of the eight varieties scored from two primer combinations

96

Table 33. Allelic frequency of polymorphic bands for each variety 100

ix

Table 34. Correlation matrix of the three characterization data sets of male and female farmers, researcher and molecular analysis 101 Table 35. Characterization of IR 36 and 36 puwa according to Mang Bernardo during the semi-structured interview104 Table 36. Characterization of RC 18 and RC 18 selection by Mang Cesinio during the semi-structured interview 105 Table 37. Characterization of IR 66 and 66 puwa by Mang Margarito during the semi-structured interview

x

106

List of Figures Figure 1. The conceptual framework

16

Figure 2. The research approach

17

Figure 3. Map of the Philippines showing the research site

32

Figure 4. The resource map of the community according to the people of Campagao

40

Figure 5. The seasonal calendar prepared by farmers of Campagao during the PRA

50

Figure 6. Time allocated to rice production work per growing season according to 6 men and 6 women respondents

64

Figure 7. Time allocated to household work per day according to 6 men and 6 women respondents

65

Figure 8. Time allocated to seed management per growing season according to 6 men and 6 women respondents 67 Figure 9. Principal coordinate analysis scatter diagram for the 8 rice varieties using the agro-morphological characterization of male and female farmers

92

Figure 10. Cluster analysis depicting the eight varieties using the male and female farmer’s characterization data set

93

Figure 11. Principal coordinate analysis of the agro-morphological characterization of rice varieties using standard descriptors 94 Figure 12. Cluster analysis depicting the eight varieties using the standard descriptors’ list for rice characterization

95

Figure 13. Principal coordinate analysis of the eight rice varieties using the molecular data set

97

Figure 14. Cluster analysis depicting the molecular characterization of the eight varieties

98

Figure 15. Cluster analysis showing the level of variation between the nine individuals from each farmers’ selection and modern variety

99

xi

List of Photos

Photo 1. Plowing the rice field using a carabao during land Preparation

52

Photo 2. Growing of rice seedling using the “wetbed” method

52

Photo 3. Transplanting of rice

53

Photo 4. Foot-pedal manual thresher commonly used in the community

53

Photo 5. Woman raking rice seeds to dry evenly

70

Photo 6. Woman respondent showing the different panicles selected from their rice fields

70

Photo 7. The four red rice and their original variety used in the study

103

Photo 8. The farmer-selector of RC 18 selection in his rice field trial 107 Photo 9. Different rice panicles rogue off from several rice plants hanging in the kitchen waiting for planting in the next season and probably will become one of the new varieties in the community 107

xii

Appendices Appendix 1. Profile of the respondents sample form

122

Appendix 2. Guide questions for semi-structured interview

123

Appendix 3. Profile of the farmer selector and farmers’ selections (varieties)

125

Appendix 4. Time allocation study sample form

127

Appendix 5. List of farmer’s selection criteria

128

Appendix 6. Measurements of the agro-morphological characters based on the Standard Evaluation System for rice 129 Appendix 7. Characterization data of farmers

134

Appendix 8. Characterization data of researcher

135

xiii

1

INTRODUCTION 1.1

Background of the study

The wealth of plant genetic resources today is a product of domestication from the wild by natural and human selections. The materials utilized for crop development to feed humanity were developed by farmers over thousands of years. In farming communities, these crops and varieties exist as part of the dynamic process of cultivation to continually adapt to the changing environment and farmers’ needs. Varieties are being produced and replaced by farmers from one season to another when varietal performance declines. This is the dynamic conservation and utilization of plant genetic resources which is part of local crop development. De Boef et al. (1993) defined local crop development as the continuous and dynamic process of maintenance, development and adaptation of germplasm to the environment, local agro-ecological production conditions, and specific household needs related to social differentiation, gender and ethnicity. Farmers’ selection concerns are not homogenous, and may vary with the different agro-ecological, socio-economic and cultural conditions they face. Rich and poor farmers in a productive region probably have very different concerns. Likewise, two poor farmers in a marginal area may differ in perspectives. Even in a farming household, there may not be similarities in male and female concerns (Bellon et al., 1997). In all societies, men and women are assigned tasks, activities and responsibilities according to their sex. The gender division of labor varies from one society and culture to another, and changes with external circumstances within each culture and over time (March et al., 1999). This, therefore, results in different needs and preferences of men and women. In crop production, men and women have different responsibilities and tasks. Men are involved in land preparation while women are in-charge of weeding, harvesting, and seed management. These concerns must be considered in technology development.

1

The Philippines, a country where rice is a staple food crop, had approximately 3500 traditional varieties prior to the Green Revolution era. In the early 1970’s, Masagana 991 program was launched to encourage adoption of new high-yielding rice varieties to increase rice production. By 1975, more than 500,000 farmers participated in the program. In so doing, the program caused a shift in the use of varieties so that most traditional varieties and landraces were replaced in farmer’s fields. The advent of this program contributed to the disappearance and displacement of traditional varieties and landraces in farmers field. According to the Philippines Bureau of Agricultural Economics, 89 percent of irrigated rice land and 77 percent of rainfed wetland rice area in 1979-80 were planted to modern varieties (Herdt and Capule, 1983). As of 1986, the country’s irrigated rice fields were planted to only five to six sister lines of modern varieties of rice released by the Philippine Seed Board (Borromeo and Hernandez, 1987). Farmers’ access to genetic resources became limited with the loss of these materials. They have to rely on whatever materials are available within the area and in nearby communities. However, this scenario induced farmers to enhance and develop such materials to continually adapt to their changing environment, needs and preferences. As a result, farmers’ fields are now rich with varieties that are produced from modern and traditional varieties through time. These are called “farmers selections”, varieties that are improved from other varieties and with one or two favorable characteristics. These changes in rice varieties in farmers field in Bohol, Philippines is the subject of the research presented in this study. Bohol was selected as a research site because of its crop diversity and the variability of its agro-ecosystems. But in particular, a previous study indicated that farmers were engaged in the enhancement and development of rice varieties with red pericarp. A survey of the Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation (CBDC) programme in 1995 identified a number of farmers’ selection of rice with red seed coat (CBDC, 1999a). Further inquiry revealed that these farmers’ varieties were selected from the modern and traditional varieties that are cultivated in the area. The reason for such preference is that red rices provide suppression of hunger and higher market prices. These two are examples of the criteria used by farmers in 1

The Masagana 99 program is the term used to refer to the Green Revolution program. 2

selecting and developing their rice varieties. This case showed that local crop development existed in farming communities. Farmers have a role in maintaining, developing and adapting varieties to the local environment and their specific needs. In view of these, this research explored the local crop development in a rice farming community in Bohol to understand farmers selection criteria and the selection methods used to develop red pericarp varieties, and to disaggregate such information by gender and socio-economic differences. 1.2

Research questions and objectives

1.2.1 Research questions The interest in local crop development is increasing. There are several studies aimed at documenting and understanding farmers’ contribution in conservation, development and management of these resources (Dennis, 1987; Bellon, 1991; Bellon and Brush, 1994; Brush, 1995). But in spite of this, there is still limited knowledge about what this approach means, and even less understanding of its various social, economic, cultural and genetic aspects (Bellon et al 1997). The research therefore addresses this problem. The major questions posed by this study are as follows: 1. What are the tasks, labor division and decision making roles in rice production and management of Boholano farmers? Do gender and socio-economic status influence these? 2. What are the seed management practices of farmers and do they contribute to the genetic diversity of red rices? Are these practices influenced by gender and socio-economic differences? 3. Do farmers have their own selection criteria and methods to improve and maintain their varieties? What are these selection criteria and methods used by farmers? Do gender and socioeconomic differences affect the criteria and methods applied? 4. How do the selection criteria and methods influence farmer’s improvement of varieties? Do the red pericarp varieties among rice farmers in Bohol indicate farmers’ knowledge and skills in developing and enhancing varieties? And do these contribute to genetic diversity?

3

1.2.2 Research objectives 1.2.2.1 Meta objective The general objective is to study and understand local crop development among rice farmers in Bohol, Philippines with a focus on the farmers’ role in selecting and enhancing red pericarp varieties, and the influence of gender and socio-economic status factors on farmers selection criteria and methods. 1.2.2.2 Specific objectives 1. To describe the tasks, labor division and decision making roles in rice production and management by gender and socio-economic differences. 2. To identify the rice varieties known by men and women farmers. 3. To document the selection criteria and methods used by male and female farmers. 4. To document the selection criteria and methods used by socioeconomic grouping of farmers. 5. To document the seed management practices of rice farmers. 6. To verify the similarities and differences among farmers' selected varieties and the original varieties based on agro-morphological and genetic characterization. 7. To determine the process of selection and enhancement of the four red rice varieties studied in the research.

4

1.3

Significance of the study This research documents the local development of rice varieties

among the farmers in the province of Bohol, Philippines. It also examines the process of improvement and adaptation of red pericarp varieties and the influence of gender and socio-economic differences on crop development. Specifically, it studied farmers’ selection method and criteria to improve and maintain varieties. Furthermore, the research examined whether gender and socio-economic differences among farmers influence their selection criteria and selection methods. The study contributes to the understanding of how farmers’ knowledge and skills can maintain, enhance and develop genetic resources that are adapted to local conditions and specific needs. The documentation of how Boholano farmers contribute to the enhancement of red rice varieties provides valuable insights on the effect of farmers’ selection pressure to increase genetic variation. In addition, the research results contribute to the increasing discussion of on-farm conservation and management of rice diversity, and an understanding of farmers’ concerns and skills to appropriately design a scientist and farmer collaboration in breeding and on-farm conservation programs. 1.4

Limitations of the study The sample size of the study is limited to one community given the

time allotted for fieldwork (three months). Therefore, the conclusion of the study is particularly based on the experiences of farmers in the study site and may greatly vary with other communities within the province and in other parts of the country. The study prefers the term “socio-economic” rather than economic groupings because indigenous concepts of wealth categories were used rather than an external classification of wealth (i.e. income and assets). The socio-economic group was determined based on the locally defined concept of the people in the community. These criteria are the sufficiency of rice harvest to support the family’s need for food and household expenses for the whole year, capacity of the family to provide education to their children and other sources of income to

5

augment their rice harvest. Therefore, the parameters of the socioeconomic status used in this study are statistically difficult to analyze. The study focussed only on four farmers’ selections and their original varieties. It was originally planned to include more varieties derived from both traditional and modern varieties. However, I decided to use four varieties given the time and scope of the study. 1.5

Organization of the paper This section outlines how the result of the research was presented

in the whole paper. It is organized in seven chapters. Chapter one presents the introduction of the study which includes a brief background of the research and its significance, organization of the paper and limitations encountered during the study. It also includes the research questions and research objectives that guided the study. The research questions are posed based on the seven specific research objectives addressed during the study. Chapter two provides a review of literature discussing farmers role in genetic diversity management, the importance of gender in local crop development and the influence of farmers socio-economic status of local crop development. Furthermore, this chapter presents the conceptual framework of the whole research. In Chapter three the research design and methodology are presented. This section elaborates the research process and methods and the means of data analysis. Moreover, the section explains the local definition of socio-economic status according to the community people that is used in this study. Chapter four presents the information about the research site at the national, town and community level. Additionally, the information on the respondents interviewed during the study is described in this section. Chapter five discusses the results with focus on the seven research objectives that are addressed by the study. The section is divided into six sub-sections. These are (1) rice farming systems and genetic diversity to briefly provide an understanding of the crops and varieties utilized by farmers, and their crop production and management practices in the community, (2) gender relations in crop management and development to present, the influence of gender differences on knowledge in rice varieties, division of labor and tasks

6

and decision making in crop production and management and seed management practices, (3) socio-economic influences in crop management and crop development with a discussion on how various socio-economic status affected the know-how on rice varieties, crop production and management, and seed management of a community, (4) selection criteria and selection methods used by the Boholano farmers to know the influence of gender and socio-economic status to their selection criteria and methods and to present the cases of three farmers who selected and enhanced the rice varieties used in the research, (5) red rice diversity analysis to show the importance of red rices and how farmers have contributed to the diversity, and (6) discussion of the link between farmers’ management of genetic diversity, gender and socio-economic status. Chapter six presents the conclusion of the paper based on the issues raised by the research. Recommendations were also presented towards the end of this chapter.

7

2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE As defined earlier, local crop development encompasses the

continuous and dynamic process of maintenance, development and adaptation of germplasm to the environment, local agro-ecological production conditions and specific household needs related to social differentiation, gender and ethnicity (de Boef et al., 1993). Farmers’ strategies for local crop development also involved and combined breeding, seed supply and conservation of genetic resources. 2 3 2.1

Farmers role in genetic diversity management

Several studies recognize farmers’ role in the management of diversity (Conklin, 1957; Dove, 1985; Dennis, 1987; Fujisaka et al., 1993; Bellon and Brush, 1994). In communities, the crops and varieties that exist are part of an evolutionary process of cultivation by farmers to continually adapt to the changing environment and their needs. This was a result of the interaction between people and the environment (Maurya, 1989; Soleri and Cleveland, 1993). In rice for example, the thousand varieties stored at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) genebank in the Philippines is an indication of these diverse genetic resources. Farmers have created and managed the environment where plants could evolve under selective pressure. Their farming systems, crops and varieties adapted to different environments, thus creating a diversity of crops, varieties and agro-ecosystems (Richards, 1985). In farming communities, there are no distinctions between conservation and development. On-farm conservation of local varieties is an existing strategy for food security. It is a potential strategy for genetic conservation. By its very nature, on-farm conservation is dynamic because the varieties that farmers manage continue to evolve in response to natural and human selection (Bellon et al., 1997). Mende rice farmers in Sierra Leone are successful in creating and maintaining their rice varieties over the years. Their method of harvesting, breaking off panicles one-by-one by hand, gives farmers the option to reject off-types as they harvest. Panicle harvesting results in the stabilization of the main seed types and also brings about a systematic grouping among off-types: early-ripening types will

8

be rogued as they ripen by farmers anxious to secure a little extra for consumption in the hungry-season, and longer duration types will be left in the field to the gleaners. This method of panicle selection has resulted in the differentiation of Mende rice germplasm into three distinct duration classes (Longley and Richards, 1993). In Zimbabwe, small grain farmers carry out seed selection at preharvest and post-harvest stages. Pre-harvest seed selection is most common among farmers where desirable plants are marked out in the field and harvested separately. The criteria for selection include overall agronomic and physical characteristics, disease and pest resistance, head shape and grain size. Post-harvest selection is carried out at threshing places. The retained seeds are selected from harvested heads (Mushita, 1993). In Bohol, the evidence of many farmers’ selection in rice field indicates the continuing process of enhancing and maintaining rice varieties to specifically fit their own needs and local conditions. Furthermore, these farmer selections were derived and enhanced by farmers from both modern and traditional varieties to suit their local preference for red rices (CBDC, 1999b). Farmers’ knowledge and skills in enhancing and creating diversity is important to local crop development. In order to maintain and improve genetic diversity, formal plant breeding and local crop development must be linked and built upon farmers’ knowledge (Hardon and de Boef, 1993; Cooper et al., 1992). At present, there are on-going initiatives to decentralize agricultural research by involving farmers at different stages of the breeding process. These are broadly categorized into Participatory Varietal Selection (PVS) and Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) since they define two different approaches. PVS involves the selection by farmers of non-segregating, characterized products from plant breeding programmes such as released cultivars, varieties in advanced stages of testing and advanced non-segregating lines. In contrast, PPB involves farmers selecting the genotypes from genetically variable, segregating materials (Witcombe and Joshi, 1995). Examples of a PVS program is the work in Rwanda by Sperling et al. (1993) who proceeded by involving farmers in the selection of bean varieties in onstation trials and then later grow them in their own fields. In the rainfed areas of India, advance breeder’s lines were distributed to

9

farmers for on-farm trials (Maurya et al., 1988). Some PPB work was also done by Sthapit et al. (1995) in Nepal where segregating lines of F5 bulk families of cold-tolerant rice were distributed to farmers for decentralized selection. In the Philippines, the MASIPAG program which is a farmer-scientist partnership has involved farmers in crossbreeding and distributed selections of segregating lines for testing in farmers’ field (Briones et al., 1989). 2.2

Gender and local crop development In society, men and women play roles and have different tasks and

responsibilities and therefore have different needs and concerns. According to Boserup as cited by Moore (1988), in many societies in Africa, men clear the land but women cultivate the crops. In subsistence agriculture in the Indian Himalayas, women are burdened with most of the farming tasks since men are heavily involved in offfarm employment (Mehta, 1996). Rice farming systems in tidal and coastal swamps in Kalimantan, Indonesia shows that women’s participation is important. Women’s tasks include seedbed preparation, transplanting, harvesting and processing of rice, vegetable and other secondary crop cultivation (Watson, 1985). In the Philippines, Ifugao women are mainly responsible for panicle harvesting because of their role are seed keepers (MRDC, 1995). Women have traditionally played a silent role in the sustainable use of biological resources and life-support systems (Shiva and Dankelman, 1992). As part of the household, women play an important role in crop production, seed management, post-harvest processing, marketing and food processing. There is ample evidence that rural women in Asia contribute significantly not only to the physical production process but also in decision making. The labor participation of women farmers varies considerably between countries. With the exception of Bangladesh, women generally supply the bulk of labor for transplanting, weeding and harvesting, by providing between 50 percent to 100 percent of the total labor for these operations (Paris, 1988). Women are knowledgeable on crop genetic diversity.

In Sudan,

women grow sorghum and millet and make from it about 30 different products such as bread-type foods of discs, sheets and flakes shapes

10

(Badri and Badri, 1994). Women contribute as producers, processors, storers and marketers in crop production, thus their significant knowledge about these resources. Agricultural scientists often consider women’s knowledge about seeds, plants, and production techniques irrelevant and backward. They argue that “scientific knowledge” must replace women’s ways of knowing. Although women have historically been the savers and storers of seeds, their knowledge and seed stores have long been disregarded by plant geneticists and seed collectors. Plant geneticists have bred rice with little consideration for women’s knowledge, needs, and appreciation of diversity (Sachs, 1996). Women’s role in seed selection is crucial to both agricultural production and conservation and enhancement of genetic resources. There is a growing volume of documented examples of gender-specific varietal preferences for seed, determined by the particular roles, tasks and responsibilities of men and women. Oosterhout (1993) notes that in Zimbabwe certain varieties of sorghum are classified according to gender roles. In Sierra Leone, Lipton et al (1988) documented thirteen criteria deemed to be important in gauging rice variety performance by household members. They found that men tend to stress agronomic factors including yield, whereas women are especially interested in processing characteristics, how much effort and fuel is needed to cook different varieties, and how well different types keep both before and after preparation (Richards and Ruivenkamp, 1997). The women of the Iban people of Sarawak, Malaysia are responsible for selecting seeds and storage of rice varieties. Women pick the most perfectly formed panicles and stored it properly. Although men take part in the actual cultivation of rice, they do not have an accurate knowledge of the selection of the varieties (Freeman, 1955). Nazarea-Sandoval (1993) mentions than female farmers utilize a greater number of criteria than male farmers in the selection and cultivation of sweet potato in Bukidnon, Philippines. Despite this, women have not been perceived as farmers and farm laborers, and historically the reference to farmers has always been male (Song, 1998). Consequently, women failed to become beneficiaries of technology, extension services, training and credit (Jiggins, 1986). Their access to and control over resources are diminishing with the introduction of modern technologies. Female

11

laborers in rice production in India are usually the first to be marginalized with the mechanization of rice cultivation (Den Uyl, 1995). Women’s concerns, skills and knowledge are an important consideration in local crop development. 2.3

Influence of farmers’ socio-economic status on local crop development Several studies show that socio-economic differences of farmers is

an important consideration for an effective adoption of technologies (Friis-Hansen, 1989; Brush et al, 1992; Nazarea-Sandoval, 1993). Farmers not only choose what varieties to plant or not to plant, or where and how to manage them, but also the seed to be planted that will be the basis for the next season. They also continually evaluate and improve varieties they have to adapt to their needs, agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions. The introduction of high-yielding varieties during the Green Revolution show that wealthier farmers adopted these varieties compared to poor farmers who retained their traditional varieties. This may be due to the incapacity to purchase external inputs such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides necessary to cultivate the modern varieties. This is specifically true for rice (Herdt and Capule, 1983) and corn. In the study of Song (1998) which compared an extremely poor environment and relatively favorable farming environment, yield benefits from the introduction of CIMMYT related materials vary according to the farming systems. The introduction of uniform high yielding hybrid maize was widely adopted in favored areas and was not appealing to farmers in harsh environment. Rhoades (1989) finds out that in potato farming communities, they grow native varieties for market while poorer communities cultivate the higher yielding, improved varieties only for home consumption because they produced more food per square meter. Farmers choose varieties for a number of reasons such as gastronomic considerations, early maturity and other agronomic criteria. These selection criteria are very much influenced by the socioeconomic status of farmers. In Rwanda, scientists from the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) established a client-driven breeding program by

12

inviting bean farmers to the research station to assess cultivars and to select those they prefer for their plots. They also look at the different selection criteria of women, poor and better-off farmers in subsistence bean production. The varieties that farmers choose in general are often higher yielding on-farm and are retained longer by farmers than those selected by the breeders. Poor farmers generally prefer early maturing varieties. This may be due to the need for a regular and faster food supply for the family. Poor farmers also consume leaves as well as fresh and dried grains so that the bean growth cycle is a very important consideration in selection of the varieties. Grain colors and other morphological characters are less important to poor farmers (Sperling et al., 1993). The breeding program of International Crop Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) in northern Namibia shows that farmers’ preferences in pearl millet varieties are early maturity, drought tolerance, large grains and good threshing characteristics. These characters are also related to the marginal condition of the farmers (Monyo et al., 1998). In Zimbabwe, small-scale farmers favor sorghum varieties with consistent, reliable and stable yield rather than high yields (Oosterhout, 1993). In the Philippines, gastronomic criteria are used eight times more than morphological characters when farmers are asked to distinguish rice varieties (Nazarea-Sandoval, 1991). The selection criteria of farmers vary depending on their socioeconomic and agro-ecological conditions. Also, it may vary with breeders who most of the times look at yield as the main criteria for selection. In breeding programs, these diverse concerns are important considerations to appropriately answer the needs and preferences of farmers. 2.4

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENDER, SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS AND The previous sections point out that farmers play a role in

developing genetic resource diversity through their own management and utilization. The existing diversity of crops and varieties in fields in developing countries are indicative of this effort. This still continues in farming communities until now. Figure 1 shows the conceptual

13

framework of this study. The diversity of red rices in farmers’ fields in Bohol is an indication of the role of farmers in increasing genetic diversity. This scenario is part of the local crop development in farming communities. It is affected and determined by farmers’ selection criteria, selection methods and seed management. Local crop development is further influenced by several factors such as the environment, local agro-ecological production conditions and household needs which interface with gender, social differentiation and ethnicity. Song’s (1998) study shows the favorable and unfavorable environment is one of the factors that dictate the type of corn varieties that farmers grow. In rice cultivation, the supply and availability of water is an important factor. Household need is an important factor in crop development and is one of the main focus of the research. Household needs are further categorized by differences within households (gender) and between households (socio-economic status and ethnicity). As presented in the earlier sections, gender roles and responsibilities affect the tasks, decision-making and knowledge of men and women farmers. The same is true for socio-economic differences between households. Ethnicity, however, is a factor that this study has not delved into since the respondents are ethically homogenous. All of them are Boholanos. These three factors, the environment, local agro-ecological production conditions and household needs are internal influences within the community. Other influences, which are external, are the research and extension programs introduced by government and non-government institutions in communities that may directly or indirectly affect local crop development. In this case, the supply of the type of rice varieties disseminated to the community contributes to the enhancement of farmers’ varieties by using their own selection criteria, selection methods and seed management. In turn, plant breeders and extension workers should consider these concerns in their agricultural programs to ensure that farmerclients are well served. Assessment of farmers’ needs and preferences and tapping farmer’s involvement at all stages of a breeding program is evidently beneficial. Farmers and plant breeders in some cases had similar selection criteria but taking into account farmer’s concerns at early stages ensures rapid and specific adoption of varieties.

14

LOCAL AGRO-ECOLOGICAL PRODUCTION CONDITIONS

ENVIRONMENT

LOCAL CROP DEVELOPMENT Conservation, Seed supply, Breeding Research and extension

§ § §

§ § §

Red rice diversity in farmers’ field Selection criteria Selection methods Seed management

HOUSEHOLD NEEDS Gender Socio-economic differences Ethnicity

Figure 1. The conceptual framework.

15

3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1

Research approach The research is divided into three phases, namely: preparatory,

research, and post-research phase. Figure 2 shows the different steps undertaken in the study from the conceptualization of the research problem until the completion and conclusion of study.

Research Problem

Objective Setting

Preparatory Phase

Site Selection

Collection of Rice Materials

Sampling of respondents

Data Collection

Research Phase Social Interview, Workshops, Questionnaires, Focus Group Discussions, Freelisting

Technical On-farm experimentation, Molecular Analysis

Data Analysis

Post Research Phase Write up Conclusion and Recommendation

Figure 2. The research approach.

16

The design of the research combines explorative research and experimentation. Explorative research is qualitative research while experiment is quantitative data collecting (Lamers, 1994). The quantitative research component documented the farmers’ role in and process of enhancement and development of red pericarp varieties in Bohol while qualitative research focused on the influence of gender and socio-economic differences to local crop development. Studying farmers’ role, knowledge and skills in local crop development encompasses understanding cultural behavior. This entails both the etic (outsider) and emic (insider) points of view (Pelto and Pelto, 1978). The research documented the knowledge of the people in the community (emic) and interpreted and analyzed this information using scientific tools (etic). Participation in this research meant the active involvement of farmers in all stages of the research. To conduct the research in this way, the researcher integrated with the respondents during the data collection phase by staying with one of the farmer families in the community. This arrangement is advantageous as the researcher had more time to be a participant observer, had better accessibility and increased rapport with the respondents. Secondly, the research tools and methods used facilitated the gathering of information from farmers and relied more on farmers’ interpretation rather than the researcher extracting and synthesizing the information. Several tools are combined to collect the information. 3.1.1 Preparatory phase This phase was comprised of activities necessary to the preparation of the actual research. The preparatory phase was important in order to know about the research site. In this case, the Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation (CBDC)2 programme staff assisted in and facilitated the selection of the community site and identification of rice materials for the study. Another activity in the preparatory phase was the collection of the four red rices.

2

CBDC is a global program working on the conservation and development of biodiversity with farming communities. The Bohol project is one of its programs. The project works on the conservation and development of rice, corn and rootcrops in the province of Bohol, Philippines.

17

In the Philippines, collection of biological and genetic resources are bound by an Executive Order 247 on bioprospecting of biological and genetic resources. This Executive Order requires a prior informed consent (PIC) before a collection of any biological and genetic resources from communities can be done. PIC activities need an academic research agreement (ARA) or commercial research agreement (CRA) to be signed with a local university or a NGO working in the area, a public notification and consultation with farmers. Therefore, a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the CBDC-Bohol programme, the Municipal Mayor and the researcher was signed. The community and surrounding areas were notified two-weeks prior to the public consultation in which the purpose of the research and its intentions in using the rice seeds were explained. A PIC certificate was signed by the farmers from the communities. 3.1.2 Research phase This phase consisted of fieldwork in the Philippines for a threemonth data collection period. During this period, the social surveys including community meetings, workshops, semi-structured interview, freelisting and the field experimentation was conducted. A local assistant who spoke the dialect was hired to help in data collection. 3.1.3 Post-research phase The activities in this stage included the molecular analysis, data analysis and writing of results. This was carried out in the Netherlands. Details of the molecular analysis and data analysis process was explained in the succeeding section of this chapter.

18

3.2

Methodology

3.2.1 Sampling Stratified random sampling was used to select the respondents. It is not practically possible to accommodate the whole population in the research thus sampling was done. Stratified sampling was done to divide the population into sub-groups based on the gender and socioeconomic status of farmers in the area. Stratifying a population was necessary because the respondents in each subgroup were more similar with the persons in other sub groups. Random sampling gave an equal probability to every individual in the population to be selected (Bernard, 1995). Selected people such as leaders and elder people in the community acted as key informants. They were asked to define their concept of socio-economic status. They mentioned three bases of socio-economic status in the area, namely: (1) self-sufficiency of rice harvest for family food, (2) size of farm, and (3) level of education of the children. Thus, the following three groups were identified. Group 1 – These households were small farmers whose rice yield was barely enough to feed the family. There was no surplus harvest of rice to sell and therefore they cannot pay for other expenses of the family such as school fees of the children. So, most of their children received only elementary education. They usually did not own agricultural fields, but if they did, these were small pieces of land (less than 0.5 ha). They also worked as laborers for other farmers within the community to supplement their income. This group is categorized as having “low” socio-economic level. Group 2 – These households were average farmers. Their agricultural lands averaged 0.5 ha. They were either owner or tenants of agricultural land. The rice yield was enough for daily consumption of the family and some other household expenses such as sending children to school. However, their children seldom reached the college level. This group is referred to as “middle” socio-economic level. Group 3 – These households were classified as better-off farmers in the community. Their farms were bigger than average size within the community. They were tenants and sometimes owned land. In most of cases, they had other sources of income (such as business, permanent jobs, support from children). They managed their farm and

19

had the capacity to hire labor for farming. Their children went to school until college level. Some of their children were professionals. This group is referred to as having “high” socio-economic level. Based on these definitions, the population was stratified with the help of the community leaders from the list of all households. The stratified list was validated with two older and respectable persons in the community and the CBDC project staff who worked in the study site. Then using draw lots, the households were randomly selected from the stratified list. The household, husband and wife in a household, were the respondents of the study. There were 7 households per socio-economic grouping. 3.2.2 Research tools Several methods were combined and utilized by the researcher to ensure that data were sufficiently and effectively collected. These tools were: 3.2.2.1

Community meetings

Two community meetings were held at the beginning and end of the fieldwork. The purpose of the first community meeting was to introduce the researcher and the research to members of the community and to decide on the schedule of activities with the respondents. The last community meeting was done to validate the data collected and share this information with the respondents and other members of the community. In both cases, the meeting were assisted by the local assistant and CBDC programme staff. 3.2.2.2

Survey questionnaire

The survey questionnaire is the most commonly used method of collecting data. There are three methods for collecting survey questionnaire data: (a) personal interviews, (b) self-administered questionnaires, and (c) telephone interviews (Bernard, 1995). The personal interviews were used in the research to gather basic information from each respondent. This method also facilitated the meeting and introduction to the respondents. The profile of respondents composed of basic information, land holdings, household information and farm description were gathered (Appendix 1).

20

3.2.2.3 Semi-structured interview Semi-structured interview is open-ended free-wheeling, and based on the use of an interview guide. An interview guide is a written list of questions and topics that need to be covered in a particular order. The interviewer, in this case, still maintains discretion to follow leads, but the interview guide is a set of clear instructions (Bernard, 1995). This technique was used to gather information on the rice production and management practices, list of selection criteria preferred by farmers, seed management practices, and selection methods (Appendix 2). The couples were interviewed separately and together. The semi-structured interview was also applied to document the process that the farmers used to enhance the rice selections (Appendix 3). Three out of the four farmers who did selection were visited and interviewed. 3.2.2.4 Free listing Free listing is one of the methods of structured interview which involves exposing every informant in a sample to the same stimuli. Particularly, it is about how different people categorize things which constitute discrete domains of listable contents. It is commonly used in studies of native taxonomies, that is, research on how different cultures categories types of kin, animals, plants, diseases, foods, etc. (Bernard, 1995). Using this method, the list of varieties known by farmers were identified. Men and women were asked to list all varieties they know in a specific time. Afterwards, the data were grouped into a list of varieties. The list of varieties provided information on the number of varieties known by the respondents and the importance of varieties to farmers. 3.2.2.5 Time allocation studies Time allocation studies (TAS) are invaluable for carefully documenting what people actually do and for how long, providing detailed data for comparisons between communities and between women and men. This method not only lays out time expenditure, but by doing so indicates something about people’s preferences and constraints in time. Such detail is expensive but useful, where assumptions about how women and men use their time need to be challenged with quantitative data (Peirce-Colfer, 1994).

21

In this particular study, TAS was used to gather information on men’s and women’s time allocation in rice production management per season, seed management per season and household work per day (Appendix 4). A total of six households (2 per socio-economic groups) were selected. The researcher separately asked both male and female farmers on the amount of time they allocated on each task and who were responsible for performing the major and minor load. A list of tasks were prepared by the researcher. The respondents identified their number of hours spent for each activity and the main and minor persons responsible. The number of hours spent by each household member on the activity was totalled to provide the time allocated. 3.2.2.6

Focus group discussion

This interview technique is now widely used in basic and in applied research. It does not replace surveys but rather complements them. It is a technique whereby a sample of people (as few as 6 and as many as 30) are brought together for a joint interview session. The focus group should be homogenous and must be decided by the researcher (Bernard, 1995). Five groups were categorized into focus groups. Two were based on gender and three were from the socioeconomic groupings. The information gathered using this technique were list of varieties, farmers’ selection criteria and selection methods, seed management, and rice production practices. The seed management and rice production practices were disaggregated using an activity calendar. 3.2.2.7

Ranking

Ranking is one of the participatory methods commonly used in social studies whereby researchers can learn the way in which people’s wealth, problems, opportunities etc. differ from one another (Nabasa et al, 1995 as cited by Ghezai, 1999). It is an effective method for obtaining information on farmers’ priorities. Farmers do the investigation and presentation of results while the researchers play a facilitating role. The ranking exercise in this study made use of the list of criteria identified through the semi-structured interview as an initial set of information. Farmers, grouped by gender and socio-economic differences, were asked to rank their criteria for choosing a variety based on priority or importance.

22

3.2.2.8

Participatory rural appraisal

Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) is one of the tools used to gather information from communities in a limited time but aimed at maximizing farmers participation (Veldhuizen et al., 1997). The outsiders serve as facilitators. Several tools are available for PRA. The research used seasonal calendar, mapping and venn diagram to gather information on crop production practices, resource map, and social structures and credit and market and seed supply system, respectively. 3.2.2.9

Recording field notes

Field notes are records kept by the researcher from observations of things encountered in the field which are related to the subject of the study and from informal interviews done with key informants. In this particular research, the researcher recorded her observations and discussions with farmers. Two types of field notes were used: descriptive notes, jottings, and a log. Descriptive notes were produced from watching and listening. It recorded my observations of processes. Jottings were also found useful in informal interviews. Keeping a log meant having a running account of how the researcher planned to spend time, how it is actually spent and how much money was spent (Bernard, 1995). 3.2.3 Field experimentation The rice experiment was set up in a farmers’ field. Agromorphological characterization of the four farmers’ selections and the four original varieties was conducted by the researcher and farmers. These eight rice varieties were grown on a 200 sq. m. field from June to October 1999. The field layout was based on systematic plot arrangement design. Each variety was planted in eight rows of 6meter length. The plants were spaced at 20 x 25 cm. Distance between plots was 0.5 meter. All cultural and management methods used were farmers' practices.

23

3.2.3.1

Farmers characterization

The list of farmers’ criteria to morphologically characterize the varieties is presented in Appendix 5. These characteristics were listed and discussed during the first community meeting. The farmers visited the experimental field individually for characterization of the varieties. A group meeting was held after every field visit to facilitate discussions and exchanges among the farmers. 3.2.3.2

Researcher’s characterization

The eight varieties were also evaluated based on the standard evaluation systems for rice developed by IRRI (IRRI, 1996). The list, description and measurements of the agro-morphological characters are shown in Appendix 6. 3.2.4 Molecular analysis The molecular analysis aimed (1) to determine the genetic similarities and differences of the farmers' selection and original varieties, and (2) to identify the origins of red pericarp color of the varieties. The results might support the data gathered during the agro-morphological characterization and prove that farmers’ selections were derived from the original varieties as farmers claimed. The molecular tool used for the study is amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP). AFLP is a PCR-based method that is able to generate complex banding patterns, DNA fingerprints of up to at 100 DNA fragments in each reaction. AFLP is based on the selective PCR amplification of restriction fragments from a total digest of genomic DNA. The technique involves three steps, namely, restriction of the DNA and ligation of oligonucleotide adapters, selective amplification of sets of restriction fragments, and gel analysis of the amplified fragments. PCR amplification of restriction fragments is achieved using the adapter and restriction site sequence as target sites for primer annealing. The selective amplification is achieved by the use of primers that extend into the restriction fragments, amplifying those fragments in which the primer extensions match the nucleotides flanking the restriction sites. Using this method, sets of restriction fragments may be visualized by PCR without knowledge of nucleotide sequence. The method allows the specific co-amplification of high numbers of restriction fragments (Vos et al., 1995). AFLP is a potential tool for

24

study of biological diversity, varietal identification and genetic mapping (Zhu et al., 1998). Briefly, these were the steps followed in the analysis. Plant materials. Plant materials were taken from the same seed lot used in the agro-morphological characterization. Farmers’ selection and original varieties were also collected from farmer's field and research institute, respectively. Nine randomly selected individuals were sampled for each variety. These materials were deemed sufficient for genetic analysis as rice cultivars have relatively homogenous nature. The seeds were grown in a glasshouse maintained at 20oC with 80 % RH and 17-hour day length for 12 days (Parsons et al., 1997). DNA extraction3. Young leaves (20 mg) were collected from all the individuals for DNA extraction following the procedure designed by Fulton et al. (1995). AFLP's protocol4. The procedure used was based on the protocol developed by Vos et al. (1995). Briefly, the general steps were: 1. Restriction digestion of genomic DNA with Mse-1 and EcoR-1 enzymes 2. Ligation of oligonucleotide adapters to fragment ends 3. Pre-amplification with one selective nucleotide 4. Amplification with the same selective nucleotide plus one or two additional nucleotide 5. Electrophoresis and autoradiography of amplified products with radiolabelled primers. The Eco1/MseI enzyme combination was used to generate the templates for AFLP reactions. Two combinations of three selective nucleotides (i.e. +3) on the Mse primer and two selective nucleotides (+2) on the Eco primer were used. These were E13 for the Eco primer and M49 and M51 for the Mse primer. 3.3

Data analysis The research data for both the social and technical aspects

underwent qualitative and quantitative analyses. These methods were: 3

The appropriateness of the procedure was tested in rice from April to May 1999. Seedling age of 12, 14 and 30 days were sampled for testing of the procedure. Results showed that sufficient DNA materials can be collected in all seedling ages. The 12 day-old seedlings were used in this study.

25

3.3.1 Qualitative analysis 3.3.1.1 Making use of quotes This method depended heavily on the presentation of selected anecdotes and comments from informants. These quotes would lend understanding the work quickly (Bernard, 1995). This research used quotes from the information gathered during semi-structured interviews. 3.3.1.2 Matrices and tables This method presented qualitative data by way of production of visual displays using table, matrix, charts and maps. The information gathered from the survey questionnaire and semi-structured interviews were analyzed using this method. Specifically, gender and socio-economic disaggregated data on rice production and management, selection methods and seed management were subjected to analysis using this method. 3.3.1.3 Ranking The farmers listed the criteria they preferred in selecting varieties and ranked them accordingly. The selection criteria were disaggregated by gender and socio-economic groups. This ranking method was used to organize and analyze data. 3.3.2 Quantitative analysis 3.3.2.1 Free listing salience index Free list salience of an item is a measure of salience, which is the result of a combined effect of the two measures of frequency and order of mention. An index of free list salience for each variety was computed, which was the gross mean percentile rank for each variety across all lists. Selected men and women informants were asked a question: What varieties do they know?. Their answers were used as basic data to compute salience of index for each respondent. 3.3.2.2 Frequency counts Frequency counts of activities are among the most useful of research results. It is a simple, straight forward and inexpensive way to analyze data of time allocation studies (Pierce-Colfer, 1994). For this study, the time allotted per activity was summed up per household 4

The AFLP protocol was tested to determine its appropriateness to rice. The experiment was carried out on May 1999.

26

member. The frequencies were presented using simple bar graphs for comparing categories. 3.3.2.3 Principal component and cluster analysis The analysis of genetic relationships among the samples was the purpose of the technical aspects of this research. A sample matrix was constructed specifying the character-state of each marker for each sample. The AFLP data were scored according to presence (1) and absence (0). While the agro-morphological data was standardized according to the descriptors. A sample x sample matrix of pair-wise genetic distances or similarities was constructed. Jaccard coefficient was used to compute similarities between varieties. The two ways of analysis of resulting distance (or similarity) and displaying the results were by the principal component analysis (PCA) and cluster analysis. The PCA was used to produce 2 dimensional scatter plots of the samples such that geometrical distances among the samples in the plot reflected the genetic distances among them with minimum distortions. Aggregations of samples in such plot revealed sets of genetically similar material. The cluster analysis produced a dendogram linking together cluster samples that were more genetically similar to each other than to samples in other clusters. Clusters were linked to each other at progressively lower levels of similarity until all the samples being analyzed were included in a single cluster (Karp et al., 1997). Statistical analysis programs were used to analyze these data. SPSS and GENSTAT were used for the social aspects and on-farm experiment data and genetic analysis data, respectively.

27

4 4.1

RESEARCH AREA AND RESPONDENTS The country profile

4.1.1 Geographical location and topography The Philippines is an archipelago off the coast of Southeast Asia with 7,100 islands. The total land area is 300,000 square kilometers. Topographically, the country is broken up by sea, which gives it one of the longest coastlines in the world. Only 1,000 of its islands are populated. Eleven islands composed of 94 percent of the Philippine landmass. The three principal regions of the country are Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao (Figure 3). Much of the country is characterized by hilly and mountainous areas known as uplands while the rest is lowlands. Narrow coastal strips of all islands and the large swampy plains of Luzon and Mindanao compose the lowlands. 4.1.2 Climate The country has a tropical marine climate dominated by two seasons, wet and dry. The summer monsoons bring heavy rains to most of the archipelago from May to October, while the winter monsoons bring cooler and drier air from December to February. The Philippines sits astride the typhoon belt and it suffers an annual onslaught of dangerous storms from July to October. Four climatic types occur in the Philippines based on the rainfall distribution. The average year-round temperature is 32oC. The climate is very well suited for agricultural production.

28

Figure 3. Map of the Philippines showing the research site.

29

4.1.3 Population In 1990, the country’s population was more than 66 million. The annual growth rate is 2.5 percent. The average population density is 220 persons per square kilometer. More than half of its population are engaged in agriculture and agriculture-related activities. More than half a million are working overseas but maintain Philippine residency (Dolan, 1991). 4.1.4 Socio-economic status The Philippines is basically an agricultural country. It’s economy is struggling under a heavy foreign debt of US dollars 23 billion. Unemployment rate in mid-1991 is pegged at 10.3 percent. However, there is a large percent of overseas work force. Approximately 50 percent of its population are below the poverty line. The situation of high malnutrition rates, high infant mortality rate, poor health care system and high percent of out-of-school children are just some manifestations of the poor socio-economic condition of the country. 4.1.5 Agricultural situation In the late 1980s, nearly 8 million hectares were under cultivation. These are distributed to field crops and tree crops with 4.5 million hectares and 3.2 million hectares, respectively. Population growth reduced the amount of arable land per person employed in agriculture from about 1 hectare during the 1950s to around 0.5 hectare in the early 1980s. Growth in agriculture output had largely come from multi-cropping and increasing yields. In 1988, double cropping and inter-cropping resulted to 13.4 million hectares of harvested areas, a total that was considerably greater than the areas under cultivation. The main cereals widely grown in the country are rice and corn that accounted for about half of the total crop area. Another 25 percent of the production was taken up by coconuts which is major export crop. Other important export earners, sugarcane, pineapples and “Cavendish” bananas accounted for only a relatively small portion of the cultivated area. The percentage of the population living in rural areas declined from 68 percent in the 1970 to 57 percent in 1990. The share of labor force engaged in agriculture, forestry and fishing also decreased to less than 50 percent by the late 1980s. Roughly two-thirds of agriculture

30

households farmed their own land or were tenants. The others are landless agricultural workers. The government sometimes pursued contradictory goals in maintaining cheap food and raw materials prices, high farm income, food security and stable prices at times through direct intervention in agricultural markets. Beginning the latter half of the 1970s, the Marcos regime gave increased attention to agriculture and the rural sector in general, including agribusiness development. The Aquino government continued that emphasis although its policy evolved from a commodity-specific orientation to a general crop diversification approach that relied more on market signals to guide crop choice. Providing credit to the agricultural sector, particularly to smallsized and medium-sized farmers had been a government policy since the early 1950s. By the early 1980s, there were approximately 900 privately owned rural banks, which were the principal implementors of government-sponsored credit schemes. Production loans were provided to farmers through the Masagana 99 program initiated in the early 1970s to encourage adoption of new high-yielding rice varieties. By 1985, however, the program expired because of high arrearage and the tight monetary policy instituted as part of an agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The program was revived in the Aquino administration under the Medium-Term Development Plan. According to government report, however, by 1988 the program had not yet reached most of the intended beneficiaries (Dolan, 1991).

31

4.1.6 Gender roles Women always enjoy equality in the Philippine society compared to their counterpart in other parts of Southeast Asia. A woman’s right to legal equality and to inherit family property have not been questioned. Education and literacy levels in 1990 were higher for women than for men. Furthermore, in the early 1990s women were found in more than their proportionate share of many professions, although they predominated in domestic service (91 percent), professional and technical positions (59.4 percent). This favorable occupational distribution does not mean that women are without economic problems. Although women were eligible for high positions, men more often obtained these. In 1990, women represented 64 percent of the graduate students but held only 16 percent of the top executive career positions in the civil service. In the private sector, only about 15 percent of the top-level positions were held by women. According to observers, this is because men relegated household tasks to women. Employed women carried a double burden. In a Filipino family, the women/mothers are responsible for childcare and household maintenance while men/husbands are primarily, the head of the households, ideally responsible for providing the material needs. Women’s involvement in economic activities is often viewed as a secondary responsibility and her relation to the labor market are as secondary earner because her primary duty to take care for her family. Since the Spanish period, woman had acted as the family treasurer, which at least to some degree gave her the power of purse. Nevertheless, the Spanish also established a tradition of subordinating women, which is manifested in women’s generally submissive attitudes and in a double standard of sexual conduct. In rural areas, women’s access to economic assets and resources is indirect and is mediated through her husband. Women may have a direct relationship to economic assets and resources but not to the fruits of those assets; women in agriculture work as unpaid family labor (Eviota, 1986). 4.2

The province of Bohol

4.2.1 Location and topography 32

Bohol is an island province located centrally in the Philippine archipelago (Figure 3). The province is specifically situated at north latitude 9o30’00’ and 10 o 15’00’ and east longitude 124 o 30’00’’. The neighboring provinces are Cebu in the northwest and Leyte in the northeast. There are 47 municipalities and 1,109 barangays1(PPDO, 1998). The province is noted for its diversity in crops as well as variability in agro-ecosystems. It has predominantly rolling plains and hilly topography with large coastal areas. The central and northern part of the island are vast expanses of relatively rolling plains and flat lands. Bohol’s terrain is variable from nearly flat at the plains which are mostly utilized and planted by rice considering the thick layers of primary soils while the slightly rolling areas are planted to coconut, cassava and vegetables. 4.2.2 Climate The climate of the province is classified as “Type 4” with even rainfall distributed throughout the year. It is usually warm and dry along the coasts while cold and humid in the interior. Typhoons are not a frequent occurrence on the island.

1

Barangay is the smallest government unit in the Philippines. It is composed of sitios or purok (neighborhood). A neighborhood is composed of around 30 households. In most cases especially in rural areas, households in a purok are composed of relatives.

33

4.2.3 Population The total population of Bohol is estimated at 994,440. The total number of households is 191,657 (NSO, 1995). The majority of the people in Bohol live in the rural areas. Only 25 percent of the population lives in urban areas (PPDO 1992). The people of Bohol are called Boholanos. 4.2.4 Agricultural situation Bohol is an agricultural province where the majority in the rural areas depend on agricultural related-activities. Out of the 411,726 hectares land area, the agricultural land is estimated at 323,100 hectares. The farming system in the province is generally diversified and is comprised mostly of small to medium-sized farms that combine both traditional and modern methods of cultivation under a wide range of ecological and soil conditions. Rice is the staple food crop of the Boholanos but they maintain a variety of other crops on their farms such as coconut, corn and various rootcrops. The province is popular for its unique root crops diversity, especially yams. Coconut is its principal cash crop covering 36 percent of the entire agricultural area. The cropland devoted to rice (including irrigated lowland, rainfed lowland and upland) is 48,818 hectares. The average yield per hectare of irrigated lowland rice, rainfed lowland rice and rainfed upland rice is 4.02 metric tons, 2.33 metric tons and 1.5 metric tons, respectively. Farm products consist largely of rice and coconuts, with rootcrops, cacao and banana as minor crops (PPDO, 1992). Agricultural products exported by the province are rice, banana, mangoes and copra. The province is touted as the rice granary of Central Visayas, however, it had imported rice over the years. The estimated rice import is 8,489.94 metric tons (PPDO, 1998).

34

4.2.5 Socio-economic status The dialect spoken is Boholano, which is closely related to the Cebuano dialect. Almost all Boholanos can speak and understand the English language. About 61 percent of Bohol’s population have attended school of which 62 percent attained elementary education while only 5 percent are academic degree holders. There are 63 percent of the population who can speak the national language, Filipino (PPDO, 1992). The average family income is pegged at R 38,187.00 which was among the lowest in the region. Fifty percent of the Boholano families get their income from entrepreneurial activities while 27 percent depend on wages and salaries. 4.3

The community of Campagao, Bilar

4.3.1 Location and topography Campagao is one of the 19 barangays located in the municipality of Bilar. The town of Bilar is 41 km away from Tagbilaran City while Barangay Campagao is approximately 10 km away from the town capital. It is an agricultural community characterized by flat and rolling lands with scattered hills. Most of the rice fields are irrigated lowland (Figure 4). 4.3.2 Demography data The population of Campagao is 7 percent (or 1092) of the total population of Bilar which is at 14,926. There are 181 households. The population density is 1.12 person per hectare. The average size of a household is 6. 4.3.3 Social structure The people in Campago are socially active. Almost all are involved in various organizations. These are the church-based (Cluster and Couples for Christ), agriculture-based (Cooperative, Campagao Farmer Research Association, and Farmer’s Association), purok-based (Dajong and Gala), and barangay-based (Council, Barangay Health Workers, Tanod, and Youth Groups).

35

Figure 4. The resource map of the community according to the people of Campagao.

36

4.4

Respondents profile

4.4.1 Basic information A total of 42 persons or 21 couples were selected as respondents of the study. Table 1 shows the personal information about the respondents. The age ranges from 37 to 60 years old. Most of them had long residence (an average of 30 years) in the community and involvement in farming (an average of 28 years). The majority of them started to help in minor farming activities at the age of 10 and they were expected to contribute more when they reached 16 years of age. In terms of their educational attainment, most of the respondents had elementary schooling. More male respondents (20 percent) had reached college level compared to the female respondents (5 percent). Women respondents mostly attended elementary and high school. Table 1.The respondent’s personal characteristics. Group

Sex

Mean

Education level (%)

Age Years in farming Elementar y

Low Middle High

High school

Organizational involvement (%)

Colleg More More e than 3 than 3 and and officer member s s

Male

40

24

70

15

15

Female

37

21

60

40

Male

42

24

40

30

Female

40

22

40

60

Male

60

44

60

25

15

40

Female

58

38

60

25

15

15

30

Less than 3 and and officers member s

15 30 15

15 40

85

13

100

19

40

30

32

15

40

15

15

41

30

37

various organizations in the community (Table 1). Almost all are involved in church groups such as Cluster2 and Couples for Christ3. Other organizations are farmer associations, cooperatives and sociocivic groups. Husbands are more active than their wives in terms of number of and positions in organizations. Moreover, men from the higher socio-economic level are more involved as officers of organizations. But, women from the middle socio-economic level hold more positions in an organization. Women from the low socioeconomic levels participate in less than three organizations as

3

Clusters are small groups of family within a community organized by the parish church. Couples for Christ are also church groups involving husband and wife.

37

35

60

Many respondents, both men and women, are actively involved in

2

Mean

Years in communit Less Non y than 3 e

members while women from the high socio-economic level belong to more than three organizations. Table 2 shows the different sources of major and minor income of the respondents. All the respondents list farming as their major source of income with rice as their most common crop. Other crops grown are coconut, banana, rootcrops and vegetables. Farmers from low and middle socio-economic levels have less sources of income, aside from rice farming compared to those with high socio-economic status. Farmers with low socio-economic levels get extra income by providing labor to other farmers in the community. Those at the high socioeconomic level had many sources of additional income. They have businesses like operating a store, raising livestock and they get support from children who are working in urban areas. Women from high and middle socio-economic levels had better opportunities for getting secondary income. Middle socio-economic level women are involved in selling snacks made from rice and a local wine called tuba4 while high socio-economic level women are raising pigs and run small stores.

4

Local wine from coconut

38

Table 2. Sources of income of the respondents. Group

Sex

No. and %

Low

Male

Major source (farming) Rice

Rice and Rice, Rice, Coconut Coconut Banana and and Banana Rootcrops

Minor source

Rice, Rice, Coconut, Coconut, Banana Banana and and Rootcrops Vegetables

No.

2

1

2

1

1

Farm labourer (3),

%

29

14

29

14

14

Raising pigs (2),

Female

No.

2

1

2

1

1

%

29

14

29

14

14

Male

No.

3

1

1

1

1

%

43

14

14

14

14

Tractor operator (1)

Middle

Female High

Male

Transportation services (1), Selling snacks (1), Selling coconut wine (1)

No.

3

1

1

1

1

Selling snacks (1),

%

43

14

14

14

14

Selling coconut wine (1)

1

3

No. %

Female

None

14

3

43

43

Support from children (2), Store (1), Carpentry(1), Retirement pay (1), Raising pigs and chickens (1)

No.

1

3

3

Support from children (2),

%

14

43

43

Store (1), Raising pigs and chickens (1), Dressmaking (1)

4.4.2 Household information The household in the community is composed of the nuclear family with father, mother and children. In some instances, other relatives such as parents, grandparents, and siblings join the household if they are old or no other relatives can take care of them. Table 3 shows the information on number of people living within the household. The average family size is 6. There are also particular cases where 2 families had non-relatives living with them. This is observed in families belonging to a high socio-economic level. The level of education reached by the children also reflects the position of a family within the community. Data show that those who belong to a high socio-economic level had higher percentage of children attending college. It should be noted however, that most of the respondents in the high socio-economic groups are older couples.

39

Table 3.Household information. Group

Low

Mean Number Children of Total Living Not househol with living d them with them 7 5 5 2

Middle

6

5

4

1

High

5

6

3

4

Other members of household

Educational level of children (%) Elementary Non e

15 1 Father of husband, 1 Mother of husband, 1 Sister of wife 1 Grandmother and 1 brother of husband 1 Grandson, 2 Neighbor, 1 Granddaughter 1 Daughter-inlaw and 3 grandchildren

Highschool

College

Pre 100 25 50 75 100 25 50 75 100 school

15

55

30

40

1 5

1 15 5

15

15 1 15 4 5 0

4.4.3 Land ownership There are different types of farmland that the respondents cultivated. These are rice, banana, coconut, rootcrops and vegetables. All the respondents manage rice fields of varying sizes, depending on their socio-economic status (Table 4). Farmers with higher socioeconomic status own more land compared to the low and middle groups. Most of them have banana and coconut farms together while rootcrops are planted in small plots near their houses. Land ownership of rice fields of all respondents is tenurial. However, most of the landowners are living in the city or outside the country. Table 4.Information on respondents agricultural land ownership. Group

Ricefield

Banana, coconut and

Pastureland

cassava field Number Siz Number Siz Number Siz Ownership Ownership Ownership e of e of e of Owned Tenan Owned Tenan Owned Tenan families (ha) families (ha) families (ha) t t t Low

7

0.5

0

7

4

0.2

3

1

0

0

0

0

Middle

7

0.7

0

7

5

0.4

1

4

0

0

0

0

High

7

1.3

0

7

6

0.3

5

1

2

0.5

1

1

40

5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1

Farming system and genetic diversity

5.1.1 Crops and varieties The crops grown in Campagao, Bohol were rice, corn, coconut, banana, root crops and vegetables (Table 5). Rice, the staple food crop, was grown on most of the farms in the community. Three types of rice were grown by the farmers. These are the modern varieties that were supplied by government extension office, farmer selections that came from farmers within and nearby communities and nongovernment organizations, and the traditional varieties from within or nearby communities. The traditional varieties retained in the community were mostly the glutinous rice varieties that were used for rice cakes. Some farmers planted them for special occasions. The preferred varieties were early to medium maturing varieties. According to the respondents, rice was grown mostly for family consumption and the market. Farmers allocated their rice harvest and ensured that enough food were available for the family. The surplus produce was sold in the nearby rice mill. Smaller amounts (less than 10 kilos) were sold to another farmer within the community who bought seeds from fellow farmers. The sale from rice was used to meet household needs, pay schooling of children, or pay loans (if there were any). Another cereal grown in the community was corn. It was an important staple food crop when rice was not available especially in lean months. Thus, corn was usually harvested a month prior to rice harvesting. It was mostly grown for food in small upland areas in the community. Farmers planted corn during months with less work in the rice field. Banana was another important crop grown by farmers in the community. It was mostly grown for food by the farmers interviewed. Sometimes if there was surplus, it was sold at the market in the local and nearby communities. Women who had time usually made snacks out of banana which they sold from house to house or in the school.

41

Varieties planted in the community were mostly traditional varieties. This may be attributed to the province lying on the center of origin of banana. Banana was planted at no specific month. Farmers grew them when they had extra time away from rice farming. Men were generally involved in growing banana, however, women assisted in tasks such as weeding. Coconut was also grown by farmers as a cash crop and for food. It was usually planted in the few upland areas in the community. Varieties grown were the traditional variety, which farmers called “Native” or “San Ramon” and the “Dwarf” variety which had been introduced by government extension workers. Planting coconut is sporadic and according to the need of the farmers. Most farmers planted them when they had less work in the ricefield. Men were mostly involved in growing coconut.

Table 5. List of crops and varieties planted by the respondents. Crops Ricea

Type Modern Varietyb Farmers Selectionc

Traditional Variety Corn Banana Coconut Root Crops

Cassava

Vegetables

Sweet potato Taro Bitter gourd Chili Onion

Variety IR 36e, IR 64e, IR 66e, IR 77e, RC 4e, RC 18 e, RC 28 e MS 2e, MS 13e, MS 32e, MBf, Japane, Vietname, Japan Selectionf, RC 18 selectionf, 77 puwaf, MB selectionf , Los Banose, 08e Pilit tapoldg, Pilit puti de, Pilit puwadf Ka emilf, Ka morof Tiniguib Duoy, Karanaba, Lakatan, Latundan, Saba, Sarabya, Suay Bagyo Dwarf, Native, San Ramon Haba, Puti, Yellow Mani-mani San Fernando

a Rice varieties grown by respondents during the 99 wet season. b Varieties bred and developed by formal institutions c Varieties believed to be selected and developed by farmers from modern and traditional variety through selection. d Glutinous varieties e White seed coat variety f Red seed coat variety g Purple seed coat variety

42

Root crops such as cassava, sweet potato and taro were grown in nearby plots in the house area. These served as an additional source of carbohydrates when boiled and eaten as supplement for rice and as snacks. There were limited varieties of rootcrops grown in the community. Cassava (Manihot esculenta L.) varieties include Haba, Puti and Yellow. The cassava varieties were named and distinguished by the color of its tubers. Sweet potato (Ipomea batatas) variety grown was Mani-mani and taro (Colocassia sp.) planted was San Fernando. Some farmers grew vegetables as a cash crop but the majority of them kept small plots in their backyard as a source of everyday food. A farmer who sold vegetable produce in the market usually grew bitter gourd, chili and onion. Other vegetables grown in the community were eggplant and string beans. Usually the farmers in the community directly or indirectly sold the produce. Sometimes, middlemen marketed vegetables in a nearby town for a better price. Vegetables growing were largely dependent on the water availability and free time of farmers from rice farming. The crops and varieties grown by farmers primarily depended on its use and farmers’ preferences. Farmers grow crops mainly for family consumption. Rice and coconut were considered as the cash crop but farmers marketed surplus produce only after the food supply was ensured. Vegetables were grown by limited farmers in the community and sometimes sold in the market. Less varietal diversity of the secondary crops like corn and rootcrops was observed. However, the varietal diversity of rice in the community was wider compared to other crops. In most cases, a farmer had an average of two or three varieties planted in the field during one season. Varietal diversity in rice was important to farmers to spread the risk of crop losses thus ensuring harvest. 5.1.2 Rice production and management Rice farming was the major cropping system in the community. All the farmers interviewed grew rice as their main crop. The average land size planted to rice was 0.83 ha per farmer. Rice was grown twice a year. The wet season is from May to October while dry season is from November to March. The season was very much dependent on the rainfall pattern in the community (Figure 5). The dominant rice growing ecology was irrigated lowland followed by rainfed lowland. 43

Rice growing was very labor-intensive. The general practice of cultivation used by the farmers was the Green Revolution technology. This included a lot of external inputs such as chemical fertilizer and pesticides that were costly. Money was therefore needed to buy inputs as well as to hire labor during land preparation, planting and harvesting (Figure 5). Farmers usually took loans from small usurers, cooperatives and private institutions. If income from rice farming was not sufficient, farmers looked for other sources to augment their income. Families from low socio-economic status usually worked as laborers on other farms. Those with higher socio-economic status had better opportunities to take care of livestock, to run stores or had support from children. The growing season of rice begins at the onset of rain. When enough water is accumulated in the field, the land was plowed and harrowed using a carabao-drawn implement or hand tractor. This was usually done by hired labor since most of them do not own a hand tractor or carabao. Those who own a carabao prepare their own land. Other activities done during land preparation are the clearing of dikes from weeds and repairing the dikes. This is mostly done by the farmowner while other men harrow or plow the field. After harrowing, the field is leveled, usually done a day before transplanting. Seedling preparation is done in a smaller plot in the rice field. The “wetbed” method is usually use by farmers in the community. The seeds are soaked in water for 24 hours and then incubated for another 24 hours to pre-germinate the seeds. Small plots in the prepared field are constructed for the seedlings. The same land preparation is followed for the seedbeds (plowed, harrowed and levelled). Usually seedbeds are constructed a day before sowing. The pre-germinated seeds are broadcasted and sown in the constructed plots in the rice field. The seedlings are kept to grow in the plots from 18 to 21 days. Transplanting of seedlings is usually finished in one day depending on the number of people on hand. The seedlings are gathered and bundled together and then transported to the rice field. The transplanting is usually done by a group of more than 10 mostly hired people depending on the size of the field. Rice is planted randomly, with no definite distance or spacing between plants. The farmers use three to five seedlings per hill. Extra seedlings are kept in bundles along the alleyway for replanting in case of missing hills.

44

Two types of weeding are done during the whole growth cycle of rice. The farmers ensure that dikes are free from weeds and do handweeding. Clearing of dikes is done before panicle initiation or booting stage. Handweeding is done three weeks after transplanting. Hired laborers usually perform handweeding. A farmer-respondent sometimes used ducks to weed their field during the land preparation. Farmers also used ducks to eat the snails (pests in rice). According to the respondents during the semi-structure interview, women and children handpick the snails. Water management is crucial to growing rice. The canals in the dikes are opened or closed depending on the growth stage, need and availability of water for the rice plants. Farmers visit the rice field at least twice per week from transplanting until the reproductive stage to control the amount of irrigation water. The farmers in the community apply two types of fertilizers. They use organic fertilizers and inorganic (or chemical ) fertilizers. Organic fertilizers consist of chicken manure supplied by the CBDC program to its members of the farmers’ organization. These are usually broadcasted during harrowing. Other farmers broadcast chemical fertilizers during transplanting and weeding. Contrary to the conventional farming technique of burning the rice straw, farmers scatter the rice straw in the field and let it decompose for additional nutrients after harvesting. Farmers in the community seldom use pesticides to control pest and diseases. They only use this as a last resort. The reason given by farmers interviewed was the high cost of these chemicals and the bad effect on their health. The farmers observe their rice field throughout the growing season for incidence of pest and disease.

45

Rainfall

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sept

Û

Õ

Õ

Õ

Û

ÛÛÛÜ

ÛÛ

Û

ÛÛ

Û

Oct

ÛÛÛ Ü

Rice

Rice:

Rice:

Rice:

Rice:

Rice:

(wet season)

seedling

transplanti

weeding

Harvestin

harvestin

and land

ng and

g

g

preparation

weeding

Rice (dry season)

Nov ÛÛ

Rice:

Rice:

Rice:

weeding

harvestin

seedling

transplanti

g

and land

ng and

preparation

weeding

Corn: seed

Corn:

preparation

harvesting

and planting Taro and

Taro and

Sweet

cassava:

cassava:

potato:

land

planting

planting

preparation Total rice

ÛÛ

Rice:

Corn

Rootcrops

Dec

‘‘

‘‘

‘‘

yield

NOTE: ‘‘ = hundred pesos ‘‘‘ = thousand pesos

Figure 5. The seasonal calendar prepared by farmers from Campagao during the PRA.

46

‘‘‘

‘‘‘

Seed selection is important to the farmers as they mostly used their own seed for the next planting season. Farmers always look out for favorable plants and paddies as source of seeds. The farmers themselves or harvesters who are instructed by the owners would separately harvest the selected rice plants. These seeds are threshed and dried separately. Harvesting of rice is done manually by hired labor. Family members provide extra help in harvesting. The rice plants are cut using a sickle (or “karet”). The cut panicles are left on the ground and gather by another person. The panicles are then kept in one place in the rice field for threshing later. To facilitate threshing, the panicles are arranged in a circle. Threshing is done using a manual thresher with foot-powered pedal. A manual blower cleans the threshed seeds. The owner of the foot-pedal thresher and blower is paid usually by having a share in the rice harvest. The paying scheme is 6 to 1. This means that for every seven sacks, the farmer gets six sacks and pays one sack to the owner of the blower and thresher. Drying of seeds is done on cemented road or pavement. However, this has some problems because not all roads in the community were cemented. Some farmers dry their harvested seeds on mats laid on the ground. Seeds are raked regularly to keep drying even. Drying is done for some days depending on the weather. The rice grains are usually sold depending on the need of a family. Dried grains are sold instead of wet grains because of their higher price. Rice in sacks (around 40 kilos) are sold in the nearby rice mill and used to pay debts or pay for big amount of household expenses. Also, some farmers sell small amount of grains on a daily basis to a farmer who buys seeds within the community. The money is used to pay for daily needs of the family.

47

Photos 1 & 2

48

Photos 3 & 4

49

5.2

Gender relations and local crop development Gender is not women. It refers to the socially or culturally

established role of men and women. Men and women have different roles and responsibilities, therefore, their needs and concern vary (Fieldstein and Jiggins, 1994). In crop production, men and women perform different tasks and have different responsibilities. The gender division of labor and tasks, and decision-making is part of the study. 5.2.1 Gender and rice varieties During the focus group discussion, male and female farmers were asked separately to identify and list down the varieties they knew. Men knew more varieties compared to women (Table 6). Men identified 54 varieties and the women listed 26 varieties. Men also identified more traditional varieties (48%) than farmer selections (30%) and modern varieties (22%) while women knew more farmer selections (38%) than modern varieties (27%) and traditional varieties (35%). However, the difference between the male and female responses is not significant. Table 6. Number of varieties known and identified by men and women farmers during the focus group discussion. Group MALE FEMALE TOTAL

Modern variety No. % 12 22 7 27 19 24

Farmer selection No. % 16 30 10 38 26 32

Traditional variety No. % 26 48 9 35 35 44

Total No. 54ns 26 ns 80

% 100 100 100

ns = non significant

Additional information on varieties were collected using the freelisting. Tables 7 and 8 show the free-list salience index results according to female and male respondents, respectively. The total number of varieties known by women were 57 and while those known by men were 73. The number of varieties mentioned only once was 25 for women and 31 for men. Four varieties were named by all women while no varieties were named by all men respondents. However, eight varieties were named by 5 out of 6 respondents. This showed than women had similar choices of varieties than men. The top ten most 50

frequently mentioned varieties for women constituted 51.8 percent and 51.3 percent for men. The highest index for women respondents was 89 percent and 69 percent for the men. Men and women had 6 varieties in common in their top ten list. These were 08, Japan, Ka emil, Kainte, Pilit puwa and Lubang.

Women mentioned more

farmers selections (6 varieties) while men listed more traditional varieties (4 varieties). The top variety selected by women was 08 while the men’s top variety was Lubang. Both results from focus group discussion and freelisting confirmed that men knew more varieties than women. This difference can be attributed to the fact that men and women had different concerns, roles and responsibilities in rice farming that was influential in the varieties they choose and knew. Women listed down more farmers’ selections while men knew more traditional varieties. It was also common to find certain varieties selected by both men and women indicating the importance of these varieties to them. The traditional varieties Lubang and Kainte were frequently mentioned by farmers in their top ten list. The same was true for a glutinous variety, Pilit puwa, which was also frequently cited by both men and women. Although the traditional variety was seldom planted in the community, its preference by farmers of Lubang and Kainte showed that the characteristics of these varieties were ideal to farmers. Moreover, farmers in the community maintained varieties that had a special purpose such as glutinous rice. It was also noted that farmers’ selections are quite diverse in the community that indicated farmer’s preference on this type of varieties.

51

Table 7. Free-list salience index test results indicating the order and frequency of mention of rice varieties by women respondents. Informants (n) = 6 women, items (yi) = 57 varieties, longest list = 39 Varieties

a

Sequence b Frequency c

O8g Japang Ka Emilh Lubangh Kainteh Masipag 2g RC 4g Los banosg MBh Pilit puwah RC 10g Hubahibg Panganahawg IR 66g Magsayag Abrag 66 puwah MS 13g Pilit tapolI MS 29g Red sikith 7 tonnerg Bordagolg IR 42g 77 puwah Dinoradoh RC 18g Pilit putig RC 12g IR 77g Pilit lubangh C4g Tongkingg Terimasg Red miracleh Red bordagolh

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

6 5 6 6 6 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1

1 100 67 58 17 8 75 42 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 e

Index Matrix d 2 3 4 100 100 67 97 84 51 17 96 62 53 60 46 57 80 5 40 0 87 0 100 95 93 56 97 10 0 100 87 44 31 0 12 92 0 88 54 0 36 49 63 0 79 77 68 0 73 0 72 60 0 77 47 0 85 83 16 28 43 0 82 70 0 44 33 0 0 0 0 74 0 52 0 0 0 59 80 0 8 27 0 64 90 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 56 0 76 0 0 72 0 23 0 41 67 0 0

Index f 5 67 0 78 100 89 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 22 0 0 0 0

6 100 94 75 69 56 0 0 0 88 31 38 50 63 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Varieties with highest index and frequency indicated most commonly known. b Sequence = the position of mention on a given variety c Frequency = the number of individuals mentioning a particular variety d Index matrix = count – sequence ------------------------ x 100 count e 1 –6 = informant’s individual index f Index = group index g White seed coat variety h Red seed coat variety I Purple seed coat variety a

52

89 66 64 58 49 47 40 41 33 32 32 32 25 25 24 24 23 22 21 21 19 19 18 18 17 15 15 15 15 15 14 13 13 12 11 11

Continuation of Table 7… 36 puwah IR 72g IR 36g Kapungkog Pilit kainteh IR 64g Kayamogg Kamoroh Karaatg Kahuyongg Kabudbodg Koreag Magsaya putig Magsaya redh Kahubongg San isidrog IR 60g Vietnam riceg Cebariatisg Wagwagg Californiah

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 13 0 0 37 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0

53

64 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 28 24 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 4

0 13 0 36 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 26 23 0 0 0 0 10 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0

0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 19 0 0 13 0 0 0

11 10 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1

Table 8. Free-list salience index test results indicating the order and frequency of mention of rice by men respondents. Informants (n) = 6 men, items (yi) = 73 varieties, longest list = 54 Varieties

a

Sequence b Frequency c

Lubangh Ka emilh Japang Kainteh Panganahawg IR 66g IR 72g O8g Pilit puwah IR 42g MS 13g RC 10g IR 64g MS 2g 77 puwah Arbeling Magsayag 36 puwah Kamuroh IR 77g Hubahibg RC 28g RC 18g IR 60g Kabudbod Bordagolg IR 36g 66 putig MS 29g

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 2 3 4 3 3 2 2 4 3 2 2

Index f

Index Matrix d 1e 0 50 31 0 0 0 0 25 0 44 19 0 0 0 0 0 56 81 0 94 0 0 0 75 88 69 0 100 0

2 77 91 100 0 55 73 68 95 32 45 0 86 36 0 82 0 64 0 0 0 59 23 0 0 50 5 0 0 0

3 77 80 100 73 70 0 90 97 7 40 47 87 0 43 0 13 60 0 83 0 63 57 20 0 0 10 93 0 27

4 100 54 59 98 37 69 85 57 67 0 72 39 91 70 33 87 0 28 0 31 20 80 81 0 0 48 30 15 74

5 59 85 32 56 62 97 38 0 88 35 76 0 50 79 82 94 9 0 91 44 21 0 41 65 0 0 0 0 0

Varieties with highest index and frequency indicated most commonly known. b Sequence = the position of mention on a given variety c Frequency = the number of individuals mentioning a particular variety d Index matrix = count – sequence ------------------------ x 100 count e 1 –6 = informant’s individual index f Index = group index g White seed coat variety h Red seed coat variety I Purple seed coat variety a

54

6 100 0 0 94 88 69 0 0 56 75 0 0 25 13 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

69 60 54 54 52 51 47 46 42 40 36 35 34 34 33 32 32 29 29 28 27 27 24 23 23 22 21 19 17

Continuation of Table 8… MS 37g Pilit putig Margayah IR 8g IR 74g Agusang Ka jesusg Pilit chinag IR 44g Karaatg RC 5g Miracleg CC 13g Promising lineg MBh 7 tonnerg Pilit Arabong Los Banosg MS 35g Pilit tapolI Mestizag Californiah Red sikith IR 28g Italiang Pilit kaintihang Pilit kagubag RC 22g Ka luisg 66 puwah Milagrosag Ilon-ilong Tongkingg IR 32g Dinoradoh RC 4g Sibilitish Ala 18g Karunsingh Kahubongg IR 22g San isidrog Tinimasg C4g

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 0

0 0 96 94 93 35 89 61 83 0 78 7 0 0

100 68 0 0 0 53 0 24 0 0 0 0 74 71

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 0 0 0 0

17 16 16 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 12 12 12

43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

3 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1

6 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 23 3 0 0 50 0 0 0

48 0 63 46 0 0 56 52 0 0 50 44

0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 0

0 0 0 0 31 50 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 11 11 10 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 7

55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

1 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0 0 0 13 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0

43 41 0 13 0 26 0 0 0 2 22 0 0 19 17 0 6 4

0 0 0 0 0 3 26 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0

0 0 44 0 0 0 6 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 7 7 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 1 1

55

5.2.2 Gender and division of labor and tasks Gender division of labor varies from one society and culture and over time. The type of work done by men and women can be distinguished between productive work (production) and reproductive work (reproduction). “Production includes the production of goods and services for income and subsistence. It is … mainly recognized and valued as work by individuals and societies, and which is most commonly included in national economic statistics. Both women and men perform productive work, but not all of this is valued or rewarded the same way. Reproductive work encompasses the care and maintenance of the household and its members, such as cooking, washing, cleaning, nursing, bearing children and looking after them, building and maintaining shelter. This work is necessary, yet it is rarely considered of the same value as productive work. It is normally unpaid and is not counted in conventional economic statistics. It is mostly done by women (March et al., 1999:p19)”. 5.2.2.1 Crop production and management The definition of household adapted by this study describes it as a social organization where people live together under one roof, eat from one kitchen and share a common budget (United Nations, 1988). The composition of a household was a male adult (husband), a female adult (wife) and children. Extended families were common where relatives, more often parent of the husband or wife, lived in the same household. Household members had certain roles and performed tasks which were sometimes clearly delineated for certain tasks but more often overlapping with others. Tables 9 and 10 show the varying tasks and responsibilities of men and women in rice production. Men were responsible in major production activities from seedling preparation to marketing. While women had only two tasks that were of major responsibility, which are picking up of golden snails during land preparation and keeping the financial resources. Women’s major contributions shared with their husbands were sowing seeds, transplanting, water management, 56

selecting and drying seeds, harvesting, storage and marketing. Men did those tasks that required heavy physical work such as land preparation. In activities where husband and wife equally worked, the men usually shouldered the heavy work. For example in drying of seeds, men were assigned to carry the sacks to and from the house while women raked the seeds to dry evenly. Rola (1995) in her study in the upland areas of the Philippines observed the same pattern in division of labor and tasks. Men were especially in-charge in tasks that requires heavy field work. Their work was comprised of land preparation, seedling preparation (construction of seedbeds), weeding, and fertilization. Women and children also made a considerable contribution to production of agricultural commodities. Contrary to a man’s tasks, women were expected to perform lighter tasks. There were also many tasks that husband and wife equally shared. Children also contributed to rice production on specific tasks. Male children were seen as doing the father’s tasks when they are older. On the other hand, female children were helping in a mother’s tasks. These showed how children at a young age were prepared and trained to do certain roles and perform responsibilities according to gender (Rola, 1995).

57

Table 9. Gender differentiated tasks in rice production and management according to 15 male respondents during focus group discussion. Task 1. Seedling preparation

2. Land preparation

3. Planting 4. Weed management 5. Water management 6. Soil fertility management

Activity Preparing seeds Constructing seedbed Soaking seeds Incubating the seeds Sowing seeds at seedbed Plowing Harrowing Leveling Clearing the dikes Filling-up and fixing dikes Picking-up golden snails Pulling out seedlings Transplanting Clearing dikes Weeding rice paddies Irrigating before weeding Irrigating after weeding Broadcasting inorganic before transplanting Broadcasting organic during harrowing

7. Pest and disease management 8. Seed selection Observing rice field Rogueing off types Harvesting seeds separately Drying seeds separately 9. Harvesting Cutting of panicles Bundling and collecting panicles 10. Post harvest Threshing handling Blower Storage 11. Marketing Allocation of harvest Selling of harvest Keeping financial resources 12. Other post Spreading rice straw harvest activities Repairing canal for damage Checking rice field if ready for next planting season a b

** Major * Minor

58

Husband **a ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** ** ** **

Wife *b * *

**

*

**

*

** ** ** ** ** **

*

** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

Labor Children

Hired Labor

** **

* * ** * **

**

** **

** ** **

** **

** **

** ** **

** **

** **

* ** * * * ** * * **

**

Table 10. Gender differentiated tasks in rice production and management according to 17 female respondents during focus group discussion. Task 1. Seedling preparation

2. Land preparation

3. Planting 4. Weed management 5. Water management 6. Soil fertility management

Activity Preparing seeds Constructing seedbed Soaking seeds Incubating the seeds Sowing seeds at seedbed Plowing Harrowing Leveling Clearing the dikes Filling-up and fixing dikes Picking-up golden snails Pulling out seedlings Transplanting Clearing dikes Weeding rice paddies Irrigating before weeding Irrigating after weeding Broadcasting inorganic before transplanting Broadcasting organic during harrowing

7. Pest and disease management 8. Seed selection Observing rice field Rogueing off types Harvesting seeds separately Drying seeds separately 9. Harvesting Cutting of panicles Bundling and collecting panicles 10. Post harvest Threshing handling Blower Storage 11. Marketing Allocation of harvest Selling of harvest Keeping financial resources 12. Other post Spreading rice straw harvest activities Repairing canal for damage Checking rice field if ready for next planting season a b

** Major * Minor

59

Husband **a ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** ** ** **

Wife *b * *

Labor Children

Hired Labor

** ** **

* ** * **

** *

** ** ** **

* * *

** **

*

** ** ** ** ** **

* ** * ** ** **

** ** ** ** ** * ** ** **

* * * ** ** **

*

** **

** ** ** **

Men said the contribution of women was lesser compared to his contribution. This opinion was also shared by the women (Table 11). However in specific tasks, women respondents viewed seed selection and marketing were major contribution that the wife shared with the husband but the men respondents thought differently. This situation was also observed by Res (1983) in a rainfed lowland rice growing area in another province in the Philippines. Men valued their own contribution more than women’s work. Table 11. Perception of men and women farmers on the percent labor contribution of household member and hired laborers in rice production and management. Labor Husband Wife Children Hired Grandmother/Mother

Men (%)

Women (%)

59 15 6 19 1

58 15 7 17 3

Furthermore, the time allocation study on rice production showed husbands provided more time than their wife and children (Figure 6). However, hired laborers took considerably more time doing the land

No. of Hours

preparation, weed management and harvesting.

500.00 400.00 300.00 200.00 100.00 0.00 Husband

Wife

Male Child

Female Child

Hired

Labor

Figure 6. Time allocated to rice production work per rice growing season according to 6 men and 6 women respondents. Productive work in rice farming was considered a male role. It was customary for men to do the heavy workload for practical reasons. Social norms and values may also have an indirect bearing on this, as

60

families who allowed their women to perform heavy work such as plowing or weeding may be frowned upon. However, reproductive work was seen as a woman’s domain. The wife spent a lot of time in household work (Figure 7). During land preparation, transplanting, and harvesting women assisted only if labor was not sufficient. Otherwise, she would be responsible for feeding the husband and hired workers. Among young couples, the wife spent more time at home doing more household work and rearing children. Women performed multiple tasks at home daily. For example, she prepared and cooked food while she also took care of the children or washed the laundry. Husbands when not busy with rice farming helped in taking care of the children and occasionally performed house

No. of Hours

repairs and maintenance. 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 Husband

Wife

Male Child

Female Child

Household Members

Figure 7. Time allocated to household work per day according to 6 men and 6 women respondents.

5.2.2.2 Seed management Seed management was important to farmers since most of them used their own seeds for the next planting season. Varieties would be planted in the same field at least three seasons before it was replaced by farmers. When asked why they replace the variety after three seasons, the reason given was that they observed that performance in terms of yield and pest resistance declined after some period. If new varieties were needed, then they procure these from fellow farmers in the community or nearby community. To choose the next variety, they

61

observed the varieties of other farmers during the whole season. Seed exchange by barter was the common practice in the community. Table 12 shows who is mainly responsible in seed management. Men were generally responsible for seed management. If they needed new seeds, the sourcing of seeds and seed exchange which means getting and transporting the seed from the neighbor to their own house were the tasks of the husband. However if they would use the same variety, men said that the husband was responsible for selecting the variety but the women mentioned that they participated. The same was true for storage of seeds. Drying of seeds was a shared task. Table 12. Results of the focus group discussion on who was responsible in seed management among male and female farmers. Task Wife Source of seeds Seed exchange Selection of variety for next season Storage of seeds Drying of seeds

Men Husban d x x x

Both

Wife

Women Husban d x x

Both

x

x x

x x

The time allocation study further indicates the number of hours spend performing tasks in seed management per season (Figure 8). It shows that husband (17.69 hours) allocate more time than their wife (15.63 hours). Other farmers were hired by better-off families to assist in sourcing of seeds, drying of seeds and storage. In most cases, the hired laborers were male and they did the heavy work.

62

No. of Hours

20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 Husband

W ife

Male Child

Female Child

Hired

Labor

Figure 8. Time allocated to seed management per rice growing season according to 6 men and 6 women respondents. 5.2.3. Gender and decision-making Decision-making is an important in access to and control of resources. In a household, decision-making matters are participated by its household members. In most cases, it is the husband and wife. Although, it greatly varies depending upon ethnicity, class and society. 5.2.3.1 Crop production and management According to the respondents, decisions related to agricultural matters were generally reached by consensus between husband and wife. For instance, decisions on what variety to plant for the next season was discussed by the husband and wife. Although, some of them mentioned that husbands took the lead in the discussion especially when the wife was not so involved with the production activities. There were also specific activities that a husband and wife equally decided on such as allocating and marketing of their produce. However, in daily household activities the wife took the major responsibility in decision matters. The husband and wife equally decided on matters affecting their children such as schooling. Table 13 shows an example of the decision-making between husband and wife. This was the view of men and women farmers on who decided on what variety to plant. In general, both men and women respondents agreed that the decision was shared by the husband and wife. However, higher percentage (19%) of husbands

63

solely decided according to the male respondents. While, women thought differently and listed a consensus decision instead. Table 13. Perception of men and women farmers on who decided on what variety to plant. Decision-maker Husband only Husband and Wife Husband, Wife, Children, Grandmother and mother Husband and Grandmother

Men (%) 19 67 14

Women (%) 14 76 5

0

5

When asked why a high percentage of shared decision-making by husband and wife, all agreed that avoiding conflict between them was the main reason. Moreover, since rice was the major source of income of the family, then decisions must be made by the two of them. 5.2.3.2 Seed management Decision-making in seed management exhibited the same trend as crop production and management. Husband and wife shared decisions. Table 14 shows that both husband and wife decide on where to select the seeds in their rice paddies if their own seeds would be used for the next planting season. It also showed that men viewed husbands as making the major decisions alone more than the women respondents did. Women respondents more often listed shared decision making in selecting the seeds.

64

Table 14. Perception of men and women farmers on who decided where to select the seeds from individual semistructured interviews. Who

Men (%)

Women (%)

19 71 10

14 76 5

0

5

Husband only Husband and Wife Husband, Wife, Children, Grandmother and Mother Husband and Grandmother

During the focus group discussion, men and women unanimously agreed that decision-making in seed management was equally made by husband and wife. The reason given was to avoid blaming one party when the crop or variety fails. Table 15 shows that equal responsibility in decision-making at aspects of seed management was preferred by all the respondents. For instance the source of seeds, whether to use their own seed or change it would be discussed between the two of them. The majority of the couples usually took turns to visit the rice field to observe the performance of the rice plants that would be helpful in the discussion later on. Table 15. Results of the focus group discussion on who decided in seed management among men and women farmers. Task

Wife

Men Husban d

Source of seeds Seed selection Storage of seeds Drying of seeds Selection of variety for next season Seed exchange

Both

Wife

Women Husban d

Both

x x x x x

x x x x x

x

x

Decisions were equally shared between husband and wife especially when it was related and important to their food concern, family matters and survival.

65

Photo 5 and 6

66

5.3

Socio-economic influence in crop management and development

5.3.1 Socio-economic status, resources and rice varieties Table 16 indicates the number of rice varieties identified by the three socio-economic groups during the focus group discussion. This showed that the middle socio-economic group listed the most number of varieties. It further indicated that traditional variety (56%) top their list compared to modern variety (20%) and farmers selection (24%). The same trend was noted with the low and high socio-economic groups. However, the data from various socio-economic groups were statistically not significant. Table 16. Number of varieties known and identified by the three socio-economic groups. Group Low Middle High Total

Modern variety No. % 7 19 9 20 7 18 23 19

Farmer selection No. % 13 34 11 24 13 33 37 30

Traditional variety No. % 18 47 26 56 19 49 63 51

Total No. 38ns 46 ns 39 ns 123

% 100 100 100 100

ns = non significant

The number of varieties known by the different socio-economic groups could be an indicator of how farmers were involved in production practices. In general, the results indicated that middle farmers were more knowledgeable about rice varieties compared to the other two socio-economic groups. 5.3.2 Influence of socio-economic status to crop production and management The level of socio-economic status was influential in determining the division of labor and tasks of men and women farmers in rice production. During the focus group discussion, the respondents were asked to identify their major and minor contribution to various tasks and activities of rice production. Tables 17, 18 and 19 shows the

67

results of their contribution to specific tasks in rice production by low, middle and high socio-economic groups, respectively. It was observed that women in low socio-economic groups participated more in rice production compared to its counterpart in the middle and high socio-economic groups. They were more involved on transplanting and harvesting. They are also part of the hired labor. Women’s major responsibility to pick up golden snails and to keep financial resources were similar at all socio-economic groups. Other tasks that husband and wife equally shared were sowing of seeds, transplanting, harvesting, marketing and storage. Men in the three socio-economic groups had major responsibility in rice production. However, there was varying participation depending on the socio-economic level. Men from the low and middle groups were contributing more in specific activities while hired labor were much more used in high socio-economic groups. This was attributed to the capacity of high socio-economic group to pay for hired laborers. Furthermore, family labor including children and women were dominant in low socio-economic groups especially in tasks such as land preparation, transplanting, weeding and harvesting. Table 20 supports the observation that low socio-economic groups used more family labor than middle and high socio-economic groups. Hired labor was commonly used by high socio-economic groups. In terms of decision-making, a consensus between husband and wife was the most common pattern in all the three socio-economic groups. But, husbands in low socio-economic groups dominated more the discussion than in the middle and high socio-economic groups (Table 20). Table 21 indicates the same observation on decisionmaking by family members on what variety to plant for the next season.

68

Table 17. Gender differentiated tasks in rice production and management according to 8 low socio-economic group respondents during focus group discussion. Task 1. Seedling preparation

2. Land preparation

3. Planting 4. Weed management 5. Water management 6. Soil fertility management

Activity Preparing seeds Constructing seedbed Soaking seeds Incubating the seeds Sowing seeds at seedbed Plowing Harrowing Leveling Clearing the dikes Filling-up and fixing dikes Picking-up golden snails Pulling out seedlings Transplanting Clearing dikes Weeding rice paddies Irrigating before weeding Irrigating after weeding Broadcasting inorganic before transplanting Broadcasting organic during harrowing

7. Pest and disease management 8. Seed selection Observing rice field Rogueing off types Harvesting seeds separately Drying seeds separately 9. Harvesting Cutting of panicles Bundling and collecting panicles 10. Post harvest Threshing handling Blower Storage 11. Marketing Allocation of harvest Selling of harvest Keeping financial resources 12. Other post Spreading rice straw harvest activities Repairing canal for damage Checking rice field if ready for next planting season a ** Major

Husband **a ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** ** ** **

Wife *b *

Labor Children

Hired Labor

** ** ** **

** ** **

** **

** **

** **

** * *

** **

*

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** **

* * * * ** * * * ** ** ** **

** ** ** **

** ** ** **

b * Minor

Table 18. Gender differentiated tasks in rice production and management according to 11 middle socio-economic group respondents during focus group discussion. Task 1. Seedling preparation

Activity Husband **a

Preparing seeds

69

Wife *b

Labor Children

Hired Labor

2. Land preparation

3. Planting 4. Weed management 5. Water management 6. Soil fertility management

Constructing seedbed Soaking seeds Incubating the seeds Sowing seeds at seedbed Plowing Harrowing Leveling Clearing the dikes Filling-up and fixing dikes Picking-up golden snails Pulling out seedlings Transplanting Clearing dikes Weeding rice paddies Irrigating before weeding Irrigating after weeding Broadcasting inorganic before transplanting Broadcasting organic during harrowing

7. Pest and disease management 8. Seed selection Observing rice field Rogueing off types Harvesting seeds separately Drying seeds separately 9. Harvesting Cutting of panicles Bundling and collecting panicles 10. Post harvest Threshing handling Blower Storage 11. Marketing Allocation of harvest Selling of harvest Keeping financial resources 12. Other post Spreading rice straw harvest activities Repairing canal for damage Checking rice field if ready for next planting season a ** Major b * Minor

70

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** ** ** **

** * * **

** **

**

** **

** **

**

** ** **

** ** **

**

**

**

*

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** **

* * * ** ** * * * * ** ** **

** ** ** **

** ** ** **

**

Table 19. Gender differentiated tasks in rice production and management according to 9 high socio-economic respondents during focus group discussion. Task 1. Seedling preparation

2. Land preparation

3. Planting 4. Weed management 5. Water management 6. Soil fertility management

Activity Preparing seeds Constructing seedbed Soaking seeds Incubating the seeds Sowing seeds at seedbed Plowing Harrowing Leveling Clearing the dikes Filling-up and fixing dikes Picking-up golden snails Pulling out seedlings Transplanting Clearing dikes Weeding rice paddies Irrigating before weeding Irrigating after weeding Broadcasting inorganic before transplanting Broadcasting organic during harrowing

7. Pest and disease management 8. Seed selection Observing rice field Rogueing off types Harvesting seeds separately Drying seeds separately 9. Harvesting Cutting of panicles Bundling and collecting panicles 10. Post harvest Threshing handling Blower Storage 11. Marketing Allocation of harvest Selling of harvest Keeping financial resources 12. Other post Spreading rice straw harvest activities Repairing canal for damage Checking rice field if ready for next planting season a ** Major b * Minor

71

Husband **a ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * * * * * ** * ** ** **

Wife *b

**

*

**

*

** ** ** ** ** * * * ** ** **

* * * * *

** ** **

Labor Children **

Hired Labor **

* *

**

** ** **

** ** ** ** **

** ** **

*

** * * *

* ** * **

** ** ** ** *

**

**

Table 20. Perception of the different socio-economic groups on the contribution of household member and hired laborers in rice production and management during semi-structured interview. Labor Husband Wife Children Hired Grandmother/Mother

Low (%) 70 13 7 7 3

Socio-economic groups Middle (%) High (%) 59 47 19 13 5 8 14 32 3 0

Decision-making in rice production was very much tied up with the participation in rice production by the family members. Children from low socio-economic groups were more actively involved in certain tasks and this was reflected in their contribution in decision-making too. Children in high socio-economic groups are influential in decisionmaking if they helped their parents in farming. It should be noted however, that some couples in the middle socio-economic groups are younger couples with small children so this might have an effect on the results. Table 21. Perception of the different socio-economic groups on who decided on what variety to plant during semi-structured interview. Family member Husband only Husband and Wife Husband, Wife, Children, Grandmother and mother Husband and Grandmother

Low (%) 29 57 14 0

Socio-economic groups Middle (%) High (%) 14 14 72 86 7 0 7

72

0

5.3.3 Influence of socio-economic status on seed management Contributions to seed management by household members varied depending on the socio-economic groups. Table 22 indicates the responsibility of the husband and wife according to the respondents. In most tasks, both husband and wife were in-charge in the performing the activities. These were storage of seeds, drying of seeds and selection of variety for next season. Moreover, the husbands were responsible for source of seeds, seed selection and seed exchange. Women had no sole tasks in seed management. Table 22. Results of the focus group discussion on who was responsible in seed management among men and women farmers of the different socio-economic groups.

x x

x x x x x

x x x x

x

Both

High Husband

Wife

Both

Husband

Both

Husband

Wife

Source of seeds Seed selection Storage of seeds Drying of seeds Selection of variety for next season Seed exchange

Socio-economic group Middle

Low

Wife

Task

x

x x x x x

High socio-economic group had more number of tasks shared between husband and wife compared to low and middle socioeconomic groups. These tasks were seed selection, storage of seeds, drying of seeds selection of variety for next season and seed exchange. This might be attributed to the amount of time available for the women of the different socio-economic groups. Women of high socio-economic groups were older compared to the low and middle groups therefore they had less household work and no children to rear. Decision-making in seed management concerns were consensus between husband and wife in the three socio-economic groups (Table 23). Family members were also part of the decision-making in seed management. Table 24 shows an example on who decides in selecting a variety. The same trend was observed in terms of decision-making

73

with crop production and management. The high socio-economic groups had higher percentage of decision-making consensus of the husband and wife in seed management than low and middle socioeconomic groups. Table 23. Results of the focus group discussion on who decided in seed management among men and women farmers of the different socio-economic groups.

Source of seeds Seed selection Storage of seeds Drying of seeds Selection of variety for next season Seed exchange

High Both

Husband

Wife

Both

Both

Husband

Wife

Low

Husband

Socio-economic group Middle

Wife

Task

x x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x

x

x

x

Table 24. Perception of the different socio-economic groups on who decided on what part of the rice field to select the seeds for planting material. Family member Husband only Husband and Wife Husband, Wife, Children, Grandmother and mother Husband and Grandmother

Low (%) 21 65 14

Socio-economic group Middle (%) 14 72 7

High (%) 14 86 0

0

7

0

Moreover, the husbands in low socio-economic group took major responsibility in decision-making. Husbands and wives shared decisions in the middle and high socio-economic groups.

74

5.4

Seed selection criteria and methods used by Boholano farmers

5.4.1 Farmer’s selection criteria As mentioned earlier, selection criteria were crucial to farmers for increasing genetic diversity in farmers’ field. The respondents during the focus group discussions were asked to list down their selection criteria. Afterwards, they were asked to rank them according to its importance and preference. Table 25 shows the list of selection criteria preferred by gender and socio-economic groupings. Moreover, Table 26 shows the Spearman’s rank correlation between the selection criteria of farmers across all groups that indicated high significance. A high degree of similarity between the selection criteria of farmers was observed. Nazarea- Sandoval (1995) developed the plant identification and classification using the criteria commonly used by farmers in discriminating among commonly known plants9. “1. Morphological: basic structure or appearance without any reference to use or cultivation requirements, for example, size and texture of leaves, length and color of stem; 2. Life habit: physiological and ecological adaptations of the particular plant, for example, where it usually grows, whether it creeps or stands erect; 3. Agronomic: properties that have a bearing on cultivation requirements, for example, whether it is prone to lodging, whether it is preferred by birds and rats; 4. Functional: use value attached by the local population to the particular plant, for example, for shelter, medicine, animal feed, decoration, or human consumption; 5. Gastronomic: evaluation of palatability or desirability of the plant or its parts as food, for example, aromatic or flavorless, soft or hard, fit for guests and special occasions or good only for family members and for daily use; 6. Economic: commercial value or potential of the plant or its parts, for example, commands high or low price in the market, whether the grains or the flowers can be sold; 7. Combination: the use of two or more criteria together… (p. 113-114)”. 9

Nazarea-Sandoval classification was used for both cultivated and non-cultivated plants, however, in this study focussed on rice and used the agronomic, morphological and gastronomic characteristics.

75

Based on Nazarea-Sandoval’s classification, the selection criteria were grouped into three, namely: morphological, agronomic and gastronomic. Most of the top selection criteria were related to agronomic characteristics specifically high yielding. Across all groups, high yield was chosen as the top selection criteria. Resistance to pest and diseases was ranked as second by all groups except for high socioeconomic group who chose good tillering ability. Drought tolerance and strong culm were also regarded as important selection criteria. High yielding characteristics ensured food supply for the family and since most of the families relied on rice farming as the major source of income. Surplus harvest also provided for extra income to support the family. Resistance to pest and diseases was related to yield. Farmers reason out that if there are no pest and diseases, the rice harvest would be plentiful. Also, there is no need to buy chemical pesticides that can be harmful to health. Strong culm is selected because plants will not easily lodge and therefore would help increase yield. Drought tolerance is important during times of limited water supply. Farmers would like to make sure that their crops would yield despite lack of water. There would also be many grains available in panicle despite the drought. Good tillering ability was again related to high yield so there would be surplus harvest for extra income to support family and enough rice for family consumption. All farmers assigned higher priority on yield and its related traits such as tillering ability, drought tolerance, strong culm and pest and disease resistance. While gastronomic characteristics had a lower preference among the farmers as preferred traits. Contrary to their preference to red rice, the respondents chose agronomic characteristics rather than gastronomic. This may be because their main concern was to plant varieties with higher yield needed for income. However, the red rices with high yielding qualities were also grown. Farmers combined specific characters in determining their varieties.

76

Table 25. List of selection criteria and their rank according to farmers’ preference from focus group discussion. Selection Criteria

Gender

Socio-economic status

Male

Female

Low

Middle

High

High yielding

1

1

1

1

1

Resistant to pest and diseases

2

2

2

2

3

Good tillering ability

3

4

4

4

2

13

5

3

8

8

Drought tolerance

7

3

8

3

6

High spikelet fertility

6

9

13

13

4

Long panicle

5

8

11

6

5

14

6

7

7

7

Plants do not need too much fertilizer

9

13

6

10

9

Early maturity

8

11

12

11

10

Short plant height

12

12

9

14

11

Good cooking quality

11

14

14

5

12

Good eating quality

11

14

14

17

12

Heavy grains

4

7

5

15

13

Good grain quality

10

10

10

9

14

Big grains

16

18

15

12

15

Red rice

17

17

16

19

16

White rice

17

17

16

16

16

Filling to the stomach

15

16

nia

18

17

TOTAL number of characteristics

17

18

16

19

17

Strong culm

Low panicle shattering

a

ni = not included as selection criteria

77

Table 26. Spearman’s rank correlation between the selection criteria used by gender and socio-economic groups. Male

Gender Female

Male

1.00

---

---

---

---

Female Low Middle High

0.735** 0.657** 0.596** 0.750**

1.00 0.872** 0.742** 0.830**

--1.00 0.656** 0.708**

----1.00 0.753**

------1.00

Low

Socio-economic groups Middle High

** significant at p< 0.01 Furthermore, the respondents were asked to list down the varieties they knew with description to validate the preferred selection criteria. The top ten varieties according to the different groups were described in Tables 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31. Across all groups, agronomic characteristics such as high yield, resistance to pest and diseases, strong culm, tillering ability, drought tolerance, early maturity and heavy grain weight were the selection criteria used by farmers in choosing the seeds and varieties. Male farmers described the varieties using agronomic, morphological and gastronomic characteristics compared to women who used agronomic and gastronomic characteristics for description. There were no differences among the socio-economic groups. The farmers used agronomic, morphological and gastronomic characteristics to describe their varieties.

78

Table 27. Top 10 varieties and characteristics as described by male respondents. V Agronomic

A.

Morphological

Gastronomic

ariety Name IR 66b

High yielding

Long panicle

Pest and disease susceptible

Tall plant height

Drought tolerant High tillering ability

RC 4 b

Short panicle

High spikelet fertility

Good cooking quality Intermediate eating quality

Easy shattering Disease-free grain Japan b

High tillering ability

Long panicle

Strong culm

Big grains

Good eating quality

Tall plant height 08 b

High tillering ability

Long panicle

Strong culm

Big grains

Good eating quality

Tall plant height Heavy grain weight

RC 10 b

Short panicle

Blackish milled rice when not dried properly

Short panicle

Aromatic when cooked Good eating quality

High yielding High spikelet fertility Early maturing Late maturing

MB c

Strong culm Difficult to thresh

MS 13 b

Long panicle

Low grain shattering Pilit puwa

ac

High tillering ability

Short panicle

Strong culm

Big grains Medium plant height

IR 64 b

Heavy grain weight

Big grains

Good cooking quality Slight sticky cooked rice

77 puwa c

Early maturity

Short panicle

Heavy grain weight Disease and pest susceptible a b c

glutinous variety white seed coat rice red seed coat rice

79

Good cooking quality

Table 28. Top 10 varieties and characteristics as described female respondents. Variety Name

Agronomic

MS 13

Disease-free grains

b

Morphological

Gastronomic

Strong culm 08

Good cooking quality

Strong culm

b

Disease-free grains Heavy grain weight High yielding High tillering ability MS 29 b

High tillering ability Strong culm

MS 2

b

High tillering ability

Good cooking quality

Strong culm High yielding Disease-free grains Heavy grain weight MB (puwa) c

IR 66 b

Strong culm

Aromatic

Pest and disease resistant

Good cooking quality

Drought sensitive

Good eating quality

High tillering ability Disease-free grains Japan(puti) b

Strong culm

Big grains

Heavy grain weight

Slight sticky cooked rice

High tillering ability Disease-free grains RC 4 b

Leftover rice easily gets spoiled

Disease-free grains

Good cooking quality

Low tillering ability Early maturity Pilit puwaa c

High tillering ability

Very sticky cooked rice High milling recovery

36 puwa c

Heavy grain weight

Good cooking quality

Early maturity a b c

glutinous variety white seed coat rice red seed coat rice

80

Table 29. Top 10 varieties and characteristics as described by high socio-economic group respondents. Variety Name

Agronomic

IR 66

High yielding

b

Morphological

Gastronomic

Pest and disease susceptible High tillering ability 66 puwa c

High yielding Pest and disease susceptible High tillering ability Late maturing than IR 66

08 b

Late maturing

Tall plant height than IR 66

High tillering ability High grain shattering 77 puwa c

Early maturing

Short plant height

Heavy grain weight IR 36 b

High yielding

Long panicle

Pest and disease susceptible

Short plant height

Gives a feeling of fullness when eaten

High tillering ability Japan b

Late maturity

Big grains

High yielding Heavy grain weight MS 13 b

Late maturity High yielding Heavy grain weight Low grain shattering

RC 28 b

Tall plant height

High yielding Pest and disease susceptible High tillering ability

Pilit puwaa c

Low yielding

Red lemma and palea

Agusan b

High tillering ability

Tall plant height

Heavy grain weight High spikelet fertility a b c

glutinous variety white seed coat rice red seed coat rice

81

Good eating quality

Table 30. Top 10 varieties and characteristics as described by middle socio-economic group respondents. Variety Name

Agronomic

Morphological

Gastronomic

IR 66 a

Early maturing

Short plant height

Good cooking qualities

Strong culm

Long panicles

Good eating quality

Heavy grain weight

Big grains

Slightly sticky cooked rice

Strong culm

Long panicles

Good eating quality

Heavy grain weight

Big grains

Slightly sticky cooked rice

Pest and disease susceptible High tillering ability Japan a

Late maturing 08 a

Late maturing MS 2 a

High tillering ability

Slightly sticky cooked rice but good eating quality

Early maturing Lodging resistant High yielding RC 4 a

Low tillering ability

Good eating quality Slightly sticky cooked rice

Heavy grain weight Strong culm Disease-free grain IR 64 a

Drought resistant

Long panicle

Slightly sticky cooked rice

Small grains

Good cooking quality

Heavy grain weight 77 puwa b

Early maturing High tillering ability

Leftover rice easily hardens after cooking

Heavy grain weight Low yielding RC 10 a

Early maturing

Short panicle

Heavy grain weight High tillering High spikelet fertility Drought tolerant Los Banos a

MB b

High spikelet fertility

Long panicle

High yielding

Tall plant height

High tillering ability

Good cooking quality

High yielding a b

Good cooking quality

white seed coat rice red seed coat rice

82

Table 31. Top 10 varieties and characteristics as described by low socio-economic group respondents. Variety Name

Agronomic

Morphological

Gastronomic

08

Heavy grain weight

Long panicle

Good grain quality

High tillering ability

Tall plant height

High yielding

Big grains

Good cooking quality

Heavy grain weight

Big grains

Good grain quality

High tillering ability

Long panicle

High yielding

Tall plant height

Good cooking quality

b

Pest and disease resistant Japan

b

Pest and disease resistant IR 66 b

High tillering ability Drought tolerant High yielding Heavy grain weight Disease-free grain High spikelet fertility

MS 29 b

High tillering ability Do not require too much fertilizer Early maturity

MS 13 b

Good grain quality

Medium tillering ability Do not require too much fertilizer Disease and pest resistant Disease-free grain

77 puwa c

Disease-free grain

Short panicle

Good cooking quality Good eating quality

Long panicle

Good grain quality

Low tillering ability High spikelet fertility Drought tolerant Do not need too much fertilizer IR 64 b

High tillering ability Strong culm

RC 4 b

Good cooking quality

Low tillering ability

White grain

Slightly sticky when cooked

Strong culm Requires too much fertilizer MB c

Late maturity

Red lemma and palea color

Good cooking quality

Pilit puwaa c

Do not require too much fertilizer

With awn

Slightly sticky when cooked

a b c

glutinous variety white seed coat rice red seed coat rice

83

In general, the results indicated that selection criteria were not greatly influenced by gender and socio-economic status since most of them preferred high yielding characteristics. However, the male respondents described varieties with agronomic and morphological characteristics while females used more agronomic and gastronomic characters. Therefore, gender roles are related to characteristics of males and females and appeared to reflect women’s secondary involvement in rice production at the field level coupled with their primary responsibility in food processing. The difference between men and women’s use of morphological characteristics may also be related to the predominance of men in the work of field observation. 5.4.2 Farmer’s selection methods There were two types of seed source common within the community. These were seeds from their own farm and seeds from neighbors. Most of the farmers planted their own seeds for three seasons before replacing it with a variety from the neighbor. New varieties and seeds from government extension seldom reached the community. If farmers wanted new varieties, they had to travel to the formal research institutions to access seeds. Farmers used two types of selection methods for producing seeds and new varieties which were related to the manner of harvesting. These were panicle selection and mass selection. The mass selection method was commonly used by farmers to select the seeds of the variety for next planting season. Panicle selection was used by farmers to select one or two panicles for creating new varieties. According to the respondents, almost all of the families used mass selection by bulk harvesting in choosing the seeds. Seeds for planting material were harvested before the food grain. The farmers observed the performance of rice plants during all growth stages. In most of the times, the rice paddies with enough sunlight and good quality seeds were selected as the source of seeds for next planting. Center rice paddies had an advantage because of less damage and disturbance by pests such as ants and people passing by the rice paddies. Disturbance was attributed by farmers to affect the pollination of seeds which resulted to poor seed quality. Farmers removed the off-

84

types to make the seeds uniform. Selected plants were then harvested in bulk. Few farmers did panicle selection. The purpose of panicle selection was to experiment and create new varieties. It was usually done by harvesting panicles of off types from the rice field as source of new materials. Families who did not perform panicle selection believed that this process was laborious. Males were mostly doing panicle selection. Farmers harvested off-types panicles favored by them. These were usually long panicle, low shattering, big grains, and red grains if from white grains. One panicle with the described characters per plant was usually harvested per plant. However, if some panicles look similar, it will be bundled together. The panicles were air dried and hung in the kitchen where it was drier. Each panicle was separately grown the following season for observation and multiplication. One seed was usually planted per hill. The seeds of these plants from one panicle would be harvested together. This would be grown for three seasons by bulking the seeds until such time that sufficient seeds were available for large areas. Special care was given to seeds. The planting materials were separately processed from the food grains. They were usually threshed, dried and placed in a sack for storage in a warm place at the house. The practice of farmers to a limited degree was similar to the mass selection technique used by plant breeders. Mass selection is the identification of superior plants from a population and the bulking of seeds to form the next generation (Welsh, 1990 as cited by Jusu, 1999). Farmers selected the best plants, harvested and bulked the seeds for the next season. Such methods could lead to improvement of desirable characteristics by farmers. For instance, new populations of rice varieties with red pericarp could be generated in several seasons because of the continuous selection and removal of unwanted off types by farmers. Jusu’s (1999) work with rice in Sierra Leone discussed positive and negative mass selection performed by farmers. He referred to positive mass selection when farmers selected and maintained panicles of desirable plants and developed them into a new variety. Most of the panicles of the varieties were discarded in favor of positive new characteristics of the few panicles. Negative mass selection referred to

85

rogueing of the off-types by farmers to maintain uniformity. The same observation held true with this research. Boholano farmers who created new varieties performed positive selection while others maintain the characteristic of their varieties conducted negative mass selection. Furthermore, it could be said that the enhancement of red rices was positive mass selection towards their own selection criteria.

86

5.5

Red rice diversity and the Boholano farmers

5.5.1 An overview of the importance of red rice and its diversity Farmer selections were abundantly grown in the community of Campagao (Table 5). Some of these varieties were red rices. The Boholanos preferred red rices because of its better eating qualities. Male and female farmers planted these varieties as it fits with their preferences. Farmers planted them because of its higher market value and longer suppression of hunger (CBDC, 1999b). This feeling of fullness was an important criteria farmers consider in a variety. There were some popular beliefs in other countries of the medicinal properties of rices because of compounds in pigmentation. For example in China, the “black rice” is believed to have “body strengthening” value. This was correlated to presence of vitamin C, riboflavin, iron, calcium and phosphorous of pigment rice compared to non-pigmented rice. According to Srinivasa Rao (1976) as cited by Juliano (1983) milled red rices in India were found to have lower carbohydrates and starch contents. This was probably because of the higher protein content and residual phenolics than non-pigmented milled rice. Male and female farmers given their preference for red rices continually create new varieties that fit their own criteria from limited materials available in the community. Traditional and modern varieties are used as the source of variability. Diverse red rices were found in the rice-growing areas of the province (CBDC, 1999a). The four farmers’ selections in Bohol, namely, RC 18 selection, 66 puwa, 77 puwa and 36 red were examples of farmer’s innovations. Principal component analysis (PCA) and cluster analysis were used to analyze the characterization data of the eight rice varieties from farmers, researchers and molecular analysis. PCA presents a scatter plot diagram reflecting the genetic similarities and differences of the rice samples while cluster analysis is a dendogram that link together in clusters more similar rice samples.

87

5.5.1.1 Characterization data from farmers Using the characteristics listed by the respondents as their selection criteria during the first community meeting, male and female farmers characterized the farmers’ selections as similar to its original varieties (Appendix 7). The principal component analysis indicated that among the four pairs of variety studied, 66 puwa and IR 66 were the most closely related varieties with a 0.8 similarity index. The variety 36 puwa and IR 36 with a similarity index of 0.75 followed. The least similar among the four pairs were RC 18 and RC 18 selection. The percentage variation of the first and second principal components were 36.11 % and 19.53 %, respectively, which resulted to the clear groupings of the four pairs of rice varieties (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Principal coordinate analysis scatter diagram for the 8 rice varieties using the agro-morphological characterization of male and female farmers.

88

Furthermore, cluster analysis showed the pairs of 66 puwa and IR 66, 36 puwa and IR 36, and RC 18 and RC 18 selection were closely linked together. Moreover, 66 puwa and IR 66 exhibited a high clustering than other varieties (Figure 10).

Figure 10. Cluster analysis depicting the eight varieties using the male and female farmer’s characterization data set.

Appendix 7 shows the agro-morphological characterization according to farmer’s descriptions. The varieties 66 puwa and IR 66 had only two characteristics, namely, spikelet fertility and seed coat color, as different. The farthest related varieties 77 puwa and RC 10 had seven different characteristics.

89

5.5.1.2 Characterization data from researcher Agro-morphological characterization of the eight varieties using 34 qualitative and quantitative characteristics based on the standard descriptors list of IRRI shows the level of similarity and differences between the farmers’ selections and original varieties (Appendix 8). Seed coat color, culm and panicle characteristics of farmers’ selection and original variety differed. The PCA scatter diagram shows grouping of farmers’ selection against the original varieties with the exception of 66 puwa and IR 66 which grouped together. The percentage variation of the first and second principal components was 24.02 % and 23.45 %, respectively. The matrix further showed a high similarity of 0.82 between 66 puwa and IR 66 compared to the other pair of varieties that range from 0.40 to 0.63.

Figure 11. Principal coordinate analysis of the agro-morphological characterization of rice varieties using standard descriptors. Figure 12. Cluster analysis depicting the eight varieties using the standard descriptors’ list for rice characterization.

90

The cluster analysis revealed results similar to the PCA. Farmers’ selections and original varieties were clearly separated in the dendogram. The farmer selections clustered together on top while the original varieties were located on the bottom of the dendogram. 66 puwa and IR 66 were the only exception with also the highest genetic similarity. This indicated that 66 puwa and IR 66 were closely related compared to the other varieties. 5.5.1.3 Molecular data Two primer combinations produced a total of 116 monomorphic and polymorphic bands. Results revealed that farmers’ selections were more polymorphic than the original variety in all the four pairs (Table 32). This indicated that farmers’ selection had higher genetic variation than the original varieties. Table 32. Monomorphic and polymorphic bands of the eight varieties scored from two primer combinations. Varieties RC 18 RC 18 selection IR 66 66 puwa RC 10 77 puwa

Number of bands Monomorphic Polymorphic 111 5 104 12 113 3 98 18 115 1 102 14

91

IR 36 36 puwa

114 94

2 22

PCA diagram shows that farmers selections and original varieties are separately grouped from one another (Figure 13). The first and second principal components indicated a 31.78 % and 18.48 % variation, respectively. However, RC 18 selection were farthest among the eight varieties was an exception. Moreover, 66 puwa and IR 66 were closely grouped among the four pairs of varieties. The similarity index of this pair was highest at 0.85 followed by 36 puwa and IR 36 with 0.75.

Figure 13. Principal coordinate analysis of the eight rice varieties using the molecular data set. Further analysis of the molecular data using cluster analysis showed farmer selections were grouped together while original varieties were clustered (Figure 14). Varieties 66 puwa and IR 66 had the 92

highest genetic distance among the farmers’ selection and original variety pairs. Moreover, RC 18 and RC 10 had a high genetic distance of 0.89 indicating their close relatedness. Similar with the PCA, the lowest genetic distance was seen with RC 18 selection with 0.50.

Figure 14. Cluster analysis depicting the molecular characterization of the eight varieties. Additionally, cluster analysis of the nine individuals per accession showed that original varieties were more homogenous than the farmer selections (Figure 15). Majority of the individuals of farmer selections were more scattered in the dendogram than modern varieties which were grouped together. Furthermore, the computed allele frequency of the polymorphic bands showed that some of the farmers’ selections had presence of bands that were absent in their respective original variety (Table 33). These are band numbers 4 and 17 for all pair of varieties. These farmers’ selection in certain loci contains similar alleles. This allele found in farmers’ selection might be linked with the red pericarp. However, the data should be further substantiated with genetic studies 93

to confirm this hypothesis. The presence of similar alleles on specific loci indicated that farmers are keen on observing change within a population. They are conscious that even small change in allele frequency can be tapped to develop new materials.

Figure 15. Cluster analysis showing the level of variation between the nine individuals from each farmers’ selection and modern variety.

94

Table 33. Allelic frequency of polymorphic bands for each variety. B.

Band number ariet y

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

RC 18 RC 18 selection

0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

0.00 0.22

0.00 0.22

0.89 0.11

0.00 1.00

0.11 1.00

0.11 1.00

0.89 1.00

0.00 0.00

1.00 0.22

0.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 0.11

0.00 1.00

0.00 1.00

0.00 0.89

0.11 0.00

0.00 0.22

0.00 0.00

IR66 66puwa

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.13

0.00 0.38

1.00 1.00

1.00 0.63

1.00 0.63

1.00 0.75

0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 0.75

1.00 1.00

1.00 0.50

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.00

0.00 0.13

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.13

RC10 77puwa

0.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.22

1.00 0.67

0.00 1.00

0.00 0.11

0.00 0.11

1.00 0.00

0.00 0.11

1.00 1.00

0.00 0.67

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.67

0.00 1.00

1.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

IR36 36puwa

0.00 0.22

1.00 0.89

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.11

0.00 0.67

1.00 1.00

0.00 0.22

0.00 0.22

1.00 0.78

0.00 0.67

1.00 0.89

0.00 0.22

0.00 0.67

1.00 0.78

0.00 0.11

1.00 0.89

0.00 0.89

0.78 0.22

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

C.

Band number 31 32 33

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

RC 18 RC 18 selection

0.00 0.00

1.00 0.11

0.00 1.00

0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

0.11 0.00

1.00 1.00

0.00 1.00

0.00 0.00

0.11 0.00

1.00 1.00

IR66 66puwa

0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

0.89 1.00

0.00 0.00

1.00 0.88

1.00 0.88

0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.25

0.11 0.13

RC10 77puwa

0.00 0.00

1.00 0.44

1.00 0.78

0.11 0.11

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

0.00 0.78

1.00 1.00

1.00 0.11

0.00 0.67

IR36 36puwa

1.00 0.22

0.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00

1.00 0.89

1.00 0.89

1.00 0.89

0.11 0.78

0.00 0.11

0.00 0.00

ariet y

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

1.00 0.00

0.00 1.00

1.00 0.11

0.00 0.33

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.11

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.22

0.00 0.13

1.00 0.75

0.00 0.13

1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

1.00 0.50

0.11 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

1.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

1.00 0.89

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.11

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

1.00 0.67

0.00 0.00

1.00 0.11

0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.33

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.11

0.00 0.00

D.

100

Rank correlation revealed a high correlation between researcher’s data and the molecular data (Table 34). This indicated a high degree of agreement among the data set. However, a negative correlation between farmers and researchers data was observed. Agromorphological variation of the eight varieties from researcher’s description was confirmed by the molecular data. Table 34. Correlation matrix of the three characterization data sets of male and female farmers, researcher and molecular analysis. Data

Similarity Farmers

Farmers Researcher Molecular

1.000 -0.138 ns 0.121ns

Researchers

Molecular

--

--

1.000

--

0.593**

1.000

non significant ** significant at p < 0.01 ns

Similar results among the three characterization data using PCA and cluster analysis were observed. Only variety IR 66 and 66 puwa were closely related as shown in the PCA and cluster analysis. There were only some degree of relatedness between the farmers’ selection and original varieties in the other three pairs using farmer’s characterization. Therefore, this showed the varying level of morphological and genetic similarities and differences of the four rice materials studied. The level of genetic diversity within farmer’s selections was higher than in modern varieties. As explicitly shown with the molecular data, high polymorphism was observed in the farmer’s selection than the original variety. Based on the high level of genetic differences between the farmer selections and original variety, we could state that the origin of the red pericarp is probably due to introgression. There are two possibilities of source of variation that enhance the change of the pericarp color of the varieties. This could be attributed to mutation or introgression. But, molecular characterization data revealed substantial genetic differences that ruled out the possibility of mutation. Thus, introgression from other red pericarp varieties may have caused the

122

change in pericarp color of the white pericarp modern varieties. The presence of red rice varieties in the community of Campagao may have contributed to these changes. Farmers are consciously planting red rices and this might have cross-pollinated the modern varieties when introduced in the community. Through time and farmers selection pressure, new varieties with red pericarp were selected and enhanced. Furthermore, the selection pressure of farmers to develop new materials contributed to the increasing diversity of red rices. Because of their preferences for red rices, farmers looked out for unique varieties in rice fields every season. Some innovative farmers picked out off-types from their rice fields to experiment with and grow the next season. The importance and diversity of red rices existing in the community had created and enhanced the diversity of rice varieties. This had ensured the dynamic evolution of varieties in the farming community through utilization.

123

Photo 7.

124

5.5.2 Farmer’s knowledge and skills in enhancing red rices : three cases of farmer-selectors This section will look at specific cases of the three farmers who selected the farmers selections used in the study. Innovative farmers continue to select and experiment on different rice varieties that lead to new varieties and more genetic variability. 5.5.2.1

Mang Bernardo

Mang Bernardo was the farmer selector of 36 puwa variety. He was well-known in his community as a farmer selector. In fact, an average of five farmers asked for his variety as planting material per season. In 1990, he harvested three panicles of an off-type from his IR 36 ricefield. He had particular interest in this offtype because it had longer panicles, high spikelet fertility and red seed coat. The off-types were grown for the next three seasons by bulking the seeds of selected plants. When a sufficient amount of seeds were available, he used this as his planting material in a bigger area. He named the variety 36 puwa since it was selected from IR 36 and puwa means red in the local dialect. The 36 puwa had the following characteristics such as good milling quality, round and long grain, thin husk (lemma and palea), medium tillering ability, awnless, strong lodging resistance, early maturity and good eating quality. Table 35. Characterization of IR 36 and 36 puwa according to Mang Bernardo during the semi-structured interview. Characteristics

Tillering ability Lodging resistance Plant height Maturity Yield Resistance to pest and diseases Drought tolerance Grain color

5.5.2.2

IR 36 High Very strong Normal 3 months after transplanting 60-80 cavans /ha (depending on input) Resistant Tolerant White

36 puwa High (lesser than IR 36) Strong Shorter than IR 36 Same Same Same Same Red

Mang Cesinio

125

Mang Cesinio was the farmer who developed RC 18 selection. He was also known as a farmer selector in his community. He liked to develop and discover new varieties. He maintained a rice field that he used for his experiments. He usually grew and screened around 20 varieties for possible new materials every season. He also crossed different varieties and performed selection of lines. In 1997, he picked out a single panicle with red seedcoat from a taller plant from his RC 18 ricefield. The seeds were air-dried in the kitchen. He experimented with the seeds observing its performance against pest and disease, drought, panicle and grain characteristics. The plants were harvested in bulk. It was grown for the next three seasons until the seeds were sufficient for planting in his ricefield. He named the variety RC 18 selection because it was a selection from RC 18. The variety was early maturing, red and had big grains, long panicles and was resistant to disease. Table 36. Characterization of RC 18 and RC 18 selection by Mang Cesinio during the semi-structured interview. Characteristics Tillering ability

RC 18

Lodging resistance

Resistant

Plant height Maturity

Normal 3.5 months after transplanting Higher Susceptible to stem borer and brown spots Not observed White

Yield Resistance to pest and diseases Drought tolerance Grain color

Higher than selection

126

RC 18 selection Normal Resistant (thicker stem than RC 18) Higher than RC 18 Two weeks earlier than RC 18 Lower than RC 18 Resistant Not observed Red

5.5.2.3

Mang Margarito

Mang Margarito was the selector of 66 puwa. He selected it from IR 66 in 1989. It instantly became famous in the community and most of his fellow farmers requested seeds while it was still on his trial field. He selected the new variety from his IR 66 field and puwa means red in Boholano dialect, thus the name 66 puwa. Three panicles from a red pericarp offtype were harvested and experimented with for the next three seasons. He maintained the other characteristics of IR 66 except for the red seed coat. Variety 66 puwa had red grains, long panicle and high milling recovery. Table 37. Characterization of IR 66 and 66 puwa by Mang Margarito during the semi-structured interview. Characteristics

Tillering ability Lodging resistance Plant height Maturity Yield Resistance to pest and diseases Drought tolerance Grain color

IR 66 Good (30 tillers)

66 puwa Good (30 tillers)

Resistant Short Early(3 months after transplanting) Less than 66 puwa Resistant

Resistant Short Early

Not observed White

Not observed Red

High Resistant

These three farmers who were living in different communities had one thing in common. They liked to experiment with their rice varieties. They selected new varieties that would suit their preferences. They had keen eyes on new sources of materials that could be developed into new varieties. Their cases further showed that strong selection pressure of farmers was instrumental in creating new varieties and consequently to increasing genetic diversity.

127

Photos 8 & 9

128

5.6 Establishing the link between farmers’ management of genetic diversity, gender and socio-economic status Farmer’s management of genetic diversity is not only about the set of varieties and crops. It involves the management processes of these varieties and the knowledge of farmers (Bellon, 1996). This research focussed on studying the continuous and dynamic process of maintenance, development and adaptation of red rice varieties to the specific environment as influenced by social factors such as household needs. The presence of different types of rice varieties showed the existing genetic diversity that continued to evolve in the community. The availability of red rices and their diversity were indicative of farmer’s management, enhancement and development of genetic diversity. Because of farmers’ conscious effort to come up with red rices through their own selection methods, they continued to select and experiment on off-types from the rice field to develop as planting materials. The case of the three farmer selectors in different communities showed how special and experienced farmers continually evaluate their materials as source of new varieties. The agro-morphological and genetic characterization in this study proved the similarities and differences between the farmer’s selections and original variety. There was a high similarity observed among the four pairs of varieties studied using farmer’s, researcher's and molecular analysis characterization. It is usually assumed that intensive selection within a population leads to the reduction of genetic variability and ultimately to erosion of the basis for selection responses (Berg, 1993). However, the study showed that farmers’ selection from modern varieties had high variation as compared to the modern varieties. This showed the continuous and dynamic process of varietal development existing in farmer’s field as influenced by the selection pressure of farmers so that varieties are suited to environmental changes and farmer’s objectives. Furthermore, it could be stated that red rices originated from three possible sources: mutation, introgression with local and/or traditional red varieties, and contamination of seeds. The results of the genetic and agro-morphological characterization showed possibility of introgression from red rices. It was substantiated by the presence of red rices grown in several farmers' field in the community. The varieties planted in the surrounding farmer’s fields were probable 129

sources of genes that contributed to the presence of new red pericarp offtypes in a population. The process of seed selection, where a harvester may single out seed or plants in an attempt to originate a new strain, may be very important to increase diversity in selfpollinated crops where hybrids between varieties occur at low rates (Bellon, 1996). Red rices were examples of the farmers’ selections but both white and red varieties existed in the community. Farmer’s selection criteria were according to their preferences and needs. These were grouped into three: agronomic, morphological and gastronomic traits. Results showed that farmers generally prioritized agronomic characteristics related to high yield more than morphological and gastronomic traits. This may be attributed to the following reasons: (1) Farmers are producing both for consumption and income generation. Given their limited land size, an average of 0.83 ha, farmers were in extreme pressure to produce enough food and surplus to defray other household expenses. Therefore, they would prioritize characteristics which would lead toward this goal. (2) Farmers had multiple criteria in selecting what varieties to plant. Despite preference for high yield traits, other traits such as grain color were also be considered. Farmer’s decision on what varieties to plant depended on several combined traits such as high yield, pest and disease resistance, grain color, eating quality, etc. Farmers used two selection methods that were related to the purpose of the seeds and manner of harvesting. These were panicle selection and mass selection. The mass selection was the commonly used method by farmers to select the seeds of the variety that will be planted for next season. Farmers select the best plants in the paddy and then bulk the seeds. Panicle selection was used by the farmers to select one or two panicles of offtypes to create new varieties. Farmers picked out unique panicle or panicles of offtypes and grow them for evaluation. Seeds from better performing plants were harvested in bulk and until sufficient volume was obtained. Only few and experienced farmers in communities did panicle selection while most farmers employed mass selection to produce their own seeds. These selection methods were very useful in farmers' management of genetic diversity. Studying farmer’s management not only entailed looking at the agro-ecological conditions but also included other components such as

130

social, cultural and economic aspects. Households were very much determined by gender, socio-economic differences and ethnicity. Therefore, gender as one of the important factors within a household was necessarily studied in this research. Men and women concerns varied according to their roles and positions, responsibilities and tasks. The dominant view of gender role between men and women, wife as caretakers of the family while husbands as the breadwinner and therefore head of the household, was observed in the study site. Men were mainly responsible for farming activities as this was considered as the major source of income of the family. Women had secondary involvement in rice production and management because they were responsible and burdened by reproductive work. However, women and children as part of family labor were important in times of major production activities (i.e. transplanting, harvesting) so they helped out. Women who were less burdened by reproductive work, had more time to spend in farming activities. This also showed that the life cycle of a family is influential in determining men and women contribution to rice farming activities. Women with small children to rear were seen less involved in fieldwork compared to older women who had grown up children. Ramcharan-Nilsen (1997) found in a rice growing area in the south of the Philippines similar observation that the number and age of children in a household most affected women's participation in rice farming activities while men's involvement did not seem to be affected. Also, households in which there were older children to look after the younger ones had slightly higher women participation in production activities. Seed management was an important aspect of the rice farming in the community since farmers used their own seed as planting materials. Seeds were freely exchanged within and outside the community. Farmers were replacing varieties for better ones every three season to ensure good harvest. There was a need for more materials in the community given this dynamic seed system. The informal seed sources were therefore crucial to the enhancement of genetic diversity. In the study, it was found out that men dominated the activities in seed management such as selection of seeds and seed exchange. However, seed drying and storage were shared between husbands and wives. Also, women contributed in decision making on what varieties to be planted for the next season. Decision-making was

131

important to avoid conflicts in households. Major decisions related to household’s sustenance and survival were made by husband and wife. Children, depending on their age and contribution to rice farming, shared some areas in decision-making. The study showed the effect of gender roles on production activities, seed management and decision-making are important consideration in farmer’s management of genetic diversity. Socio-economic status of farmers was another factor found of importance in the management of genetic diversity. It was found out that middle socio-economic group was the most actively involved in all production processes in their farms because they had more time to allocate to their fields. Farmers in the high socio-economic group had sufficient resources to hire laborers in some specific production activities while those who belong to the low socio-economic group had to work as laborers in other farmer’s field. Family labor dominated low socio-economic groups. In most cases, males from the low socioeconomic group worked as hired laborers to augment their income and wives provided additional time and labor to look after their own farms. Therefore, women from low socio-economic groups were more active in rice production activities compared to the middle and high socioeconomic groups. However in seed management, husbands and wives from high socio-economic had more shared tasks while husbands from low and middle socio-economic groups dominated most of the tasks. These may be attributed to the time available for women of high socioeconomic groups who were least burdened with household tasks, child rearing and fieldwork in rice production. Selection criteria, in this study, were not greatly influenced by gender and socio-economic groupings. The study showed homogenous choices by men and women of the three socio-economic groups. High yield capacity was the most important criteria of farmers because it was related to their major source of income. However, farmers not only relied on one criteria but was always combinations of agronomic, morphological and gastronomic traits. Women tended to use gastronomic traits such as cooking and eating quality to identify varieties. On the other hand, men preferred agronomic and morphological characteristics. In general, the study showed that the presence of high genetic diversity among farmers selection in the community of Campagao is

132

the result of farmers' continuous and dynamic management of their crops and varieties to adapt to environment, their preferences, concers and needs. It further indicated that gender and socio-economic status were important factors affecting farmer’s handling of the diverse rice genetic resources. It is therefore, crucial to consider these differences among men and women within and between households.

133

6

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The increasing recognition and need to know more about farmers’

knowledge and skills in management of genetic diversity prompted the study. Thus, this thesis documented the enhancement and development of red rices among farmers in Bohol. The conclusions drawn from the research are as follows: The evidence of the existing genetic diversity among of farmers’ red rice selections in the community of Campagao indicated the farmer’s contribution to the continuous development and adaptation of varieties to the farming systems. Crops that were closely related to the sustenance and survival of households were more diverse compared to less minor crops. In this case, the different types of rice varieties were grown in abundance in the community. Varieties were kept by farmers if they were useful, valuable and adapted to the local environment. Selection pressures of farmers were a major determinant in local crop development. The need for new materials influenced farmers to continually look for better varieties, depending on their needs and preferences. The evidence of farmers selecting off types from their rice populations proved that farmers were capable of creating new variation, thus, contributing to the increase of genetic diversity in communities. In farming communities, new materials may develop because of introgression between varieties. This is the case for the red rice offtypes in a white rice population. Farmer’s selection methods- panicle and mass selections, were useful in increasing and developing the genetic diversity in the community. Gender roles affected the tasks, division of labor, contribution and decision making of men and women in crop production management and seed management. Men dominated in performing these activities but women also provided considerable contribution. However, the age and number of children determined the contribution of women. The socio-economic status of households was another important factor that influenced crop production and seed management. The time allotted in rice production activities by husbands and wives depended on their socio-economic standing. Better-off farmers had more time for seed management and other activities because other

134

laborers could be hired to perform tasks in rice cultivation. Men and women in low socio-economic group were more burdened with other work to augment their income. Selection criteria were homogenous among gender and socioeconomic groups. In general, agronomic characteristics were preferred by farmers rather than gastronomic and morphological. However, men used more agronomic characteristics and women combined these with gastronomic traits in describing their varieties. This may be because men spent more time in fieldwork and women in food processing and post harvest activities. Decision making was always a consensus between husbands and wives to avoid conflict within the household especially on matters related to their sustenance and survival. In view of these conclusions, the research offers the following recommendations: ·

Tap farmers' knowledge and skills in planning and implementing breeding programs;

·

make use of the highly diverse genetic resources in farming communities for crop conservation and improvement;

·

provide diverse materials to farmers from breeding programs to enhance and diversify the local genepool of farmer's varieties;

·

consider socio-economic and gender-related factors in initiating and implementing a more comprehensive and workable research and development programs in general and specifically conservation and breeding programs; and

·

study further the agro-morphological and genetic characters of other red rice varieties in the community to validate the hypothesis of introgression among them.

135

REFERENCES Badri, B. and A. Badri. 1994. Women and biodiversity. Development, Journal of SID, 1; 67-71. Bellon, M. 1991. The ethnoecology of maize variety management, a case study from Mexico. Human Ecology, 19; 389-418. Bellon, M. and S. Brush. 1994. Keepers of maize in Chiapas, Mexico. Economic Botany, 48; 196-209. Bellon, M. 1996. On farm-conservation as a process: an analysis of its components. In : Sperling, L. and M. Leovinhson (eds.). Using diversity: enhancing and maintaining genetic resources on-farm : proceedings of a workshop. June 1995. IDRC. India. Bellon, M., Pham, J. and M. Jackson. 1997. Genetic conservation : a role for rice farmers. In : Maxted, N., Ford-Lloyd, B.V. and J.G. Hawkes (eds.). Plant Genetic Conservation. Chapman and Hall. USA. Berg, T.1993. The science of plant breeding – support or alternative to traditional practices?. In : Boef, W. de, Amanor, A., Wellard, K. and A. Bebbington. (eds.). Cultivating knowledge: genetic diversity, farmer experimentation and crop research. Intermediate Technology Publication. United Kingdom. Bernard, H. 1995. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Altamira Press. USA. Boef, W. de, Amanor, A., Wellard, K. and A. Bebbington. 1993. Cultivating knowledge: genetic diversity, farmer experimentation and crop research. Intermediate Technology Publication. United Kingdom. Borromeo, T. and J. Hernandez. 1987. Philippine rice genetic resources: status, problems and prospects. Paper presented in the national conference on genetic resources and development. September 1987. Tagaytay, Philippines. Briones, A., Cayaban, E., Vicente, P. and R. Aspiras. 1989. Farmerbased research for sustainable rice farming. ILEIA Newsletter, December; pp-24-25. Brush, S. 1995. In situ conservation of landraces in centers of crop diversity. Crop Science, 35; 346-354. Brush, S., Taylor, J. and M. Bellon. 1992. Technology adoption and biological diversity in Andean potato agriculture. Journal of Development Economic, 38; 365-387.

136

Cooper, D., Vellve, R. and H. Hobbelink. 1992. Growing diversity: genetic resources and local food security. Intermediate Technology Publications. London. Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation. 1999a. A study on the plant genetic resources diversity and seed supply system of Bohol Island, Philippines. Technical Report. Unpublished. Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation. 1999b. Development of rice farmer’s selection in Bohol, Philippines. Technical Report. Unpublished. Conklin, H.C. 1957. Hanunoo Agriculture in the Philippines. Forestry Development Paper, 12. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Dennis, J. 1987. Farmer management of rice variety diversity in northern Thailand. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Cornell University. Michigan University. Microfilms. Den Uyl, M., 1995. Gender and the division of labour in rice cultivation. p 225-246. In: M. Den Uyl (ed.). Invisible barriers: gender, caste and kinship in a southern Indian village. International Books. Utrecht. Dolan, R. 1991. Philippines- a country study. Federal Research Division. Library of Congress. USA. Source from: http://Icweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/photo.html#0000 Dove, M.R. 1985. Swidden agriculture in Indonesia, the subsistence strategies of the Kalimantu Kantu. Studies in the social sciences, 43. Mouton Publishers, Berlin, New Babylon. Economic and social commissions for Asia and the Pacific. 1982. Participation of women in paddy production and processing. United Nations. Bangkok, Thailand. Eviota, E. 1986. The articulation of gender and class in the Philippines. In : Leacock, E., Safa, H. and contributors (eds.). Women’s work, development and the division of labor by gender. Bergin and Garvey Publishers. Massachusetts, USA. Fieldstein, H. and J. Jiggins. 1994. Tools for the field: methodologies handbook for gender analysis in agriculture. Kumarian Press. Connecticut, USA.

137

Freeman, J.D. 1955. Iban Agriculture: a report on the shifting cultivation of hill rice by the Iban of Sarawak. Colonial Research Station Paper, 18. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, London. Friis-Hansen, E. 1989. Seeds of wealth – seeds of risk, the vulnerability of hybrid maize production in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania. Centre for Development Research. Copenhagen. Fujisaka, S., Elliot, P., Jayson, E. and A. Dapusala. 1993. Where has been no Green Revolution, farmers’ upland rices and related knowledge in Mindanao, Philippines. p. 96-110. In : International Institute for Rural Reconstruction (ed.). Indigenous Knowledge and Sustainable Development. Philippines. Fulton, T., Chumuongse, J. and S., Tanksley. 1995. Microprep protocol for extraction of DNA from tomato and other herbaceous plants. Plant Molecular Biology Reporter, 13; 3, 207-209. Ghezai, I. 1999. Gender differentiated management of sorghum genetic diversity: an exploratory study conducted among the Kunama in the south western lowland zone of Eritrea. MSc Thesis. WAU, the Netherlands. Unpublished. Hardon, J. and W. de Boef. 1993. Linking farmers and plant breeders in local crop development. In : Boef, W. de, Amanor, A., Wellard, K. and A. Bebbington. (eds.). Cultivating knowledge: genetic diversity, farmer experimentation and crop research. Intermediate Technology Publication. United Kingdom. Herdt, R.W. and C. A. Capule. 1983. Adoption, spread and production impact of modern rice varieties in Asia. International Rice Research Institute. Philippines. IRRI. 1996. Standard evaluation system for rice. IRRI. Philippines. Jiggins, J. 1986. Gender-related impacts and the work of the International Agricultural Research Centers. CGIAR study paper no. 17. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, World Bank. Juliano, B.O. 1993. Rice in human nutrition. IRRI, Philippines and FAO, Rome. Jusu, M. 1999. Management of genetic variability in rice (Oryza sativa L. and O. glaberrima steud.) by breeders and farmers in Sierra Leone. PhD Thesis. Wageningen Agricultural University. The Netherlands.

138

Karp, A., Kresovich, S., Bhat K., Ayad w. and T. Hodgkin. 1997. Molecular tools in plant genetic resources conservation: a guide to the technologies. IPGRI Technical Bulletin, 2. IPGRI. Rome. Lamers, H. 1994. Report writing for science, technology and management. Wageningen Agricultural University. The Netherlands. Longley, C. and R. Richards. 1993. Selection strategies of rice farmers in Sierra Leone. In : Boef, W. de, Amanor, A., Wellard, K. and A. Bebbington. (eds.). Cultivating knowledge: genetic diversity, farmer experimentation and crop research. Intermediate Technology Publication. United Kingdom. March, C., Smyth, I. and M. Mukhopadhyay. 1999. A guide to genderanalysis frameworks. An Oxfam publication. Great Britain. Maurya, D.M. 1989. The innovative approach of Indian farmers. p. 913. In : R. Chambers, A. Pacey and L.A. Thrupp. (eds.). Farmer first, farmer innovation and agricultural research. Intermediate Technology Publications. London. Maurya, D., Botrall A. and J. Farrington. 1988. Improved livelihoods, genetic diversity and farmer participation: a strategy for rice breeding in rainfed areas in India. Experimental Agriculture 24, 3; 311-320. Mehta, M. 1996. Our lives are no different from that of our buffaloes: agricultural change and gendered spaces in a central Himalayan valley. p. 180-208. In : Rocheleau, D., Thomas-Slayter, A. and E. Wangari. (eds.). Feminist political ecology. Routledge, London and New York. Montanosa Research Development Center. 1995. Indigenous seed selection, storage and breeding techniques for rice and legumes in Cordillera. SIBAT. Philippines. Monyo, E., Ipinge, S, Heinrich, G. and E. Chinhema. 1998. Participatory breeding: does it make a difference – lessons from Namibian pearl millet farmers. Paper presented to the 2nd International Seminar/Workshop on “Assessing the Impact of Participatory Research and Gender Analysis. September 1998. Quito, Ecuador. Moore, H. 1988. Gender and status: explaining the position of women. p 12-14. In: H. Moore (ed.). Feminism and anthropology. Polity Press. Cambridge.

139

Mushita, A. 1993. Strengthening the informal seed supply system in communal areas of Zimbabwe. In: Boef, W. de, Amanor, A., Wellard, K. and A. Bebbington. (eds.). Cultivating knowledge: genetic diversity, farmer experimentation and crop research. Intermediate Technology Publication. United Kingdom. National Statistics Office. 1995. Philippines. Nazarea-Sandoval, V. 1991. ‘If the shoe fits: local criteria for varietal selection and certain implications for agricultural research and development. Paper presented for the UPWARD for the International Potato Center, The Philippines. Nazarea-Sandoval, V. 1993. Of memories and varieties: complementarity between cultural and genetic diversity. Paper presented at the workshop on the Human Socio-economic and Cultural Aspects of the Plant Genetic Resource Conservation, IPGRI, Rome. April-May, 1993. Nazarea-Sandoval, V. 1995. Local knowledge and agricultural decision making in the Philippines: class, gender and resistance. Cornell University Press. USA. Oosterhout, S. van. 1993. Sorghum genetic resources of small-scale farmers in Zimbabwe. In: Boef, W. de, Amanor, A., Wellard, K. and A. Bebbington. (eds.). Cultivating knowledge: genetic diversity, farmer experimentation and crop research. Intermediate Technology Publication. United Kingdom. Paris, T. 1988. Women in rice farming systems: a preliminary report of an action research program in Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan. In: IRRI (ed.). Filipino women in rice farming systems. Philippines. Parsons, B., Newbury, H., Jackson, M., and Ford-Lloyd, B. 1997. Contrasting genetic diversity relationships are revealed in rice (Oryza sativa L.) using different marker types. Molecular Breeding 3; 115-125 Pelto, P. and G. Pelto. 1978. Anthropological research: the structure of inquiry. Cambridge University Press. United Kingdom. Pierce-Colfer. 1994. Time allocation studies: a methodological notes. In: Feldstein, H. and J. Jiggins (eds.). Tools for the field: methodologies handbook for gender analysis in agriculture. Kumarian Press. USA. Provincial Planning and Development Office. 1992. Bohol Provincial Profile. Tagbilaran, Philippines. Provincial Planning and Development Office. 1998. Bohol Area Profile, excerpts. Tagbilaran, Philippines.

140

Ramcharan-Nilsen, L. 1997. Gender roles in plant genetic resources conservation: a comparative study of intensive and organic lowland rice farming systems in Mindanao, Philippines. MSc thesis. NORAGRIC. Agricultural University of Norway. Norway. Unpublished. Res, L. 1983. Changing labor allocation patterns of women in rice farm households: A rainfed rice village in Iloilo province in Philippines. Wageningen Agricultural University. The Netherlands. A paper prepared for the conference on women in rice farming systems. IRRI. Philippines. Res, L. 1986. Households, women, labor and change: A study in a Philippine rainfed rice village. Wageningen Agricultural University. The Netherlands. Richards, P. 1985. Indigenous agricultural revolution : ecology and food production in West Africa. Hutchinson, London. Richards, P. and G. Ruivenkamp. 1997. Seeds and survival: crop genetic resources in war and reconstruction in Africa. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. Rome, Italy. Rhoades, R. 1989. The role of farming in the creation of agricultural technology. In: Chambers, R., Pacey, A., and L.A. Thrupp. (eds.). Farmer first: farmers innovation and agricultural research. Intermediate Technology Publications. London. Rola. M. F. 1995. The role of women in upland farming systems: a case study of a Philippine village. In: Women in upland agriculture in Asia, proceedings of a workshop. 1995. Chiang Mai, Thailand. Sachs, C. 1996. Gendered fields: rural women, agriculture and environment. Westview Press. USA. Sthapit. B., K. Joshi and J. Witcombe.1995. Farmers participatory high altitude rice breeding in Nepal: providing choice and utilizing farmers’ expertise. In: Sperling, L. and M. Leovinhson. (eds.). Using diversity: enhancing and maintaining genetic resources on-farm, proceedings of a workshop. June 1995. IDRC. India. Shiva, V. and I. Dankelman. 1992. Women and biological diversity: lessons from the Indian Himalayas. In: Cooper, D., Vellve, R. and H. Hobbelink. (eds.). Growing diversity, genetic resources and local food security. Intermediate Technology Publication. London. Soleri, D. and D. Cleveland. 1993. Hopi crop diversity and change. Journal of Ethnobiology 13, 2; 203-231.

141

Song. Y. 1999. New seeds in Old China: Impact of CIMMYT collaborative Programme on Maize Breeding in South-western China. PhD Thesis. Wageningen Agricultural University. The Netherlands. Sperling, L., Leovinhson, M., and B. Ntabomvura. 1993. Rethinking the farmers role in plant breeding: local bean experts and on-station selection in Rwanda. Experimental Agriculture 29; 509-519 United Nations. 1988. Improving statistics and indicators on women using households surveys studies in methods. Series No. 48. Department of International Economics and Social Affairs. Statistical Office and International Training Institute for the Advancement of Women. New York. United Nations. Veldhuizen, L. van., Waters-Bayers, A., and H. de Zeeuw. 1997. Developing technology with farmers: trainer’s guide for participatory learning. Zed Book. London. Vos, P., Hogers, R., Bleeker, M., Reijans, M., Lee T. van de., Hornes, M., Frijters, A., Pot J., Peleman, J, Kuiper M., and M. Zabeau. 1995. AFLP: a new technique for DNA fingerprinting. Nucleic Acid Research 23, 21; 4407-4414. Watson, G. 1985. Women’s role in the improvement of rice farming systems in coastal swamplands. In: Women in rice farming, proceedings of a conference on women in rice farming system. September 1993. IRRI. Philippines Witcombe, J. and A. Joshi. 1996. The impact of farmer participatory research on biodiversity of crops. In: Sperling, L. and M. Leovinhson. (eds.). Using diversity: enhancing and maintaining genetic resources onfarm, proceedings of a workshop. June 1995. IDRC. India. Zhu, J., Gale, M., Quarrie, M., Jackson, M., and G. Bryan. 1998. AFLP markers for the study of rice diversity. Theoretical Applied Genetics 96; 602-611.

142

APPENDIX Appendix 1. Profile of the respondents sample form. Personal data Name: ____________________________________ Sex: ______ Age: _____years Address: __________________________________ Ethnicity: ______________________ Level of education: _____ Elementary _______ Grade level _____ Highschool _______ Year level _____ College _______ Year level ___________ Course ____________________________ Others, specify Number of years in farming: ______________________ Sources of income: Major: ____________________ Minor: _____________________ Household information Number of household members: ___________________________________ Number of children: ________living with them ________ not living with them Age of children: ____________________________________________________ Educational attainment of children: _____________________________________ Other relatives living with family: _________________________________________ Organizational involvement What? ____________ Membership? _____________ Since When?______________ Number of years in living in community:___________________________________ House ownership :__owned ___rented/___ how much __Others, specify _____ Equipment owned: at house, please enumerate? __________________________ At farm, Please enumerate? ________________________________________________ Land holdings: Area of house : Owned_______________ Size_________ Rented ______________ Size _________ Others ______________ Size __________ Agricultural area: (example : lowland rainfed rice, upland rice, etc.) What? ___________ How much? _____(has) Tenurial status ___________ Crops grown: What? ___________ How much? _________________ (has) Varieties grown: Crop name ______________Variety Name __________________________ Purpose produce of each parcels: (cash, food, etc.) Variety Name _______________For what? ___________________________ Description of farm: (by parcel) What? ___________________________ Topography: _______________________

Location: __________________________ Soil properties: ____________________

Other information:

143

Appendix 2. Guide questions for semi-structured interview 1. Rice production and management information of farmers Activities When? How How? Who? long? Family Hired 1. Seedling preparation 2. Land preparation 3. Transplanting 4. Weed management 5. Water management 6. Soil fertility management 7. Pests and disease management 8. Seed selection 9. Harvesting 10. Post-harvest handling a. threshing b. storage 11. Marketing 12. Other post harvest handling 7 2. LIST OF SELECTION CRITERIA PREFERRED BY FARMERS Name of farmer: _________________ Sex: _______Socio-economic group: _____ Traits or criteria used by Reasons for When observed? (stage of Rank farmers using growth)

3. Documentation on the seed management a. Sources of seeds Conditions? Own Bought from Government program NGO Neighbors within community Neighbors nearby community? Where? Relatives? Who Others? Specify Who decide where to get the seeds from? Why? b. Seed selection Process? When? Who? c. Storage of seeds Methods? How?

Who?

Why?

Who decide what varieties to plant ? Why? ________________________________

144

4. List of selection methods a. Panicle selection When? How?

Who?

Why?

b. Bulk method When?

How?

Who?

Why?

c. Other methods When?

How?

Who?

Why?

145

Appendix 3. Profile of the farmer selector and farmers’ selections (varieties) Personal data Name: ____________________________________ Sex: ______ Age: _____years Address: __________________________________ Ethnicity: ______________________ Level of education: _____ Elementary _______ Grade level _____ Highschool _______ Year level _____ College _______ Year level __________ Course ____________________________ Others, specify Number of years in farming: ______________________ Sources of income: Major: ____________________ Minor: _____________________ Household information Number of household members: ___________________________________ Number of children: ________living with them ________ not living with them Age of children: ____________________________________________________ Educational attainment of children: _____________________________________ Other relatives living with family: _________________________________________ Organizational involvement What? ____________ Membership? _____________ Since When?______________ Number of years in living in community:___________________________________ House ownership :__owned ___rented/___ how much ___Others, specify ___ Equipment owned: at house, please enumerate? __________________________ At farm, Please enumerate? ________________________________________________ Land holdings: Area of house : Owned_______________ Size_________ Rented ______________ Size _________ Others ______________ Size __________ Agricultural area: (example : lowland rainfed rice, upland rice, etc.) What? ___________ How much? ______(has) Tenurial status __________ Crops grown: What? ___________ How much? _________________ (has) Varieties grown: Crop name ______________Variety Name __________________________ Purpose produce of each parcels: (cash, food, etc.) Variety Name ________________ For what? _______________________ Description of farm: (by parcel) What? ___________________________ Topography: _______________________

Location: __________________________ Soil properties: ____________________

Other information:

146

About the variety Name of variety : ___________________________________ Description of the characters (as characterize by farmer) : _____________________ Original parent (variety name): ____________ From where? )______________ When selected: _________________________ Reason for selecting the variety: ________________________________________ Distinct feature of the variety for interest: _______________________________ Other remarks: _________________________________________________________ Selection method Describe in details the selection procedure 1. panicle selection ________________________________________________________ 2. bulk selection __________________________________________________________ 3. Others _________________________________________________________________ Any experiment done on the variety to test it? What? How long? Why? Other information Other varieties planted in the vicinity of the variety when selected:

147

Appendix 4. Time allocation study sample form Name of farmer: _______________________________________________ Rice production and management (per rice growing season) 1. Seedling preparation 2. Land preparation 3. Transplanting 4. Weed management 5. Water management 6. Soil fertility management 7. Pests and disease management 8. Seed selection 9. Harvesting 10. Post-harvest handling a. threshing b. storage 11. Marketing 12. Other post harvest handling 13. Other activities 4 Seed Management (per rice growing season) 5 1. Sourcing of seed 2. Seed selection 3. Harvesting 4. Storage 6 Household activities ((per day) 7 1. Food preparation (marketing, gathering) 8 2. Cooking 9 3. Childcare 10 4. Carrying water 11 5. Collecting firewood 12 6. Cleaning and maintaining the house 13 7. Repairing house and fence 14 8. Other activities

What?

What?

What?

148

When?

When?

When?

How Long?

How Long?

How Long?

With whom?

With whom?

With whom?

Appendix 5. List of farmer’s selection criteria Characteristics 1. High number of tillers 2. Maturity 3. Resistance to pest and diseases 4. Heavy grain weight

Growth stage Booting stage (3 weeks after transplanting) 40 days after transplanting (at maturity) Early vegetative stage to reproductive stage After harvesting (at maturity)

5. Good cooking quality (good eating quality – delicious) (aromatic when cooked) 6. High yield

After harvest (during cooking and eating)

7. Seed coat color (red and white) 8. Plant height (short)

At maturity

Harvest period

After flowering

9. Lodging resistant (strong culm) 10. Panicle length (long) 11. Drought resistant

After flowering up to maturity Near maturity Early to late vegetative stage

12. Panicle shattering (low)

At maturity (during harvesting)

13. Volume expansion of cooked rice

After harvest (Cooking )

14. High spikelet fertility

At maturity (ripe panicles)

149

Measurement Count the tillers Count the number of days from transplanting to full heading Observe the performance of plants Weighing (must exceed than the regular 40 kilos per sack By cooking (taste test)

Comparison with previous harvest and should be more than the minimum harvest per season Unhusking the seeds Measure plant height (use of measuring tool) Observation and by pushing the culm by foot Grain count Capable of producing grain after drought or strong heat (lack of water) Shaking the panicles in the tillers Large amount of cooked rice and large amount of water that can be used when cooking Plenty of seeds in panicle, clean and disease-free grains, and no dark spots in grains

Appendix 6. Measurements of the agro-morphological characters based on the Standard Evaluation System for Rice.

A. Agronomic traits 1. Tillering ability The score must represent most plants within the plot.

Growth stage Booting

2. Culm strength This is first rated after heading by gently pushing the tillers back and forth a few times. Final observation at maturity is made to record standing position of plants 3. Plant height Use actual measurement (cm) from soil surface to the tip of the tallest panicle (awns excluded). For height measurements at other growth stages, specify the stage. Record in whole numbers (do not use decimals). 4. Leaf senescence The leaves below the flag leaf are observed at the time of harvest for their retention of greenness.

Dough stage to mature grain

5. Panicle exsertion The exsertion of the panicle above the flagleaf sheath after anthesis. Rating is based on the majority of plants in the plot.

Milk stage to mature grain

Milk stage to mature grain

Mature grain

Scales 1 Very high (more than 25 tillers/plant) 3 Good (20-25 tillers/plant) 5 Medium (10-19 tillers/plant) 7 Low (5-9 tillers/plant) 9 Very low (less than 5 tillers/plant) 1 Strong (no bending) 3 Moderately strong (most plants bending) 5 Intermediate (most plants moderately bending) 7 Weak (most plants nearly flat) 9 Very weak (all plants flat) 1 Semidwarf (lowland is less than 110 cm and upland is less than 90 cm) 5 Intermediate (lowland is less than 110–130 cm upland is less than 90 – 125 cm) 9 Tall (lowland more than 130 cm and Upland more 125 cm) 1 5 9 1 2 5 7

9

150

Late and slow (leaves have natural greencolor) Intermediate (upper leaves yellowing) Early and fast (all leaves yellow or dead) Well exserted (the panicle base appears way above the collar of the flag leaf blade) Moderately well exserted (the panicle base is above the collar of the flag leaf) Just exserted (the panicle coincides with the collar of the flag leaf) Partly exserted (the panicle base is slightly Beneath the collar of the flag leaf blade) Enclosed (the panicle is partly or entirely enclosed within the leaf sheath of the flag leaf.

6. Panicle threshability The matured panicle is firmly grasped by the hand and a slight rolling pressure is applied with the palm and the fingers. Estimate the percentage of shattered grains. 7. Spikelet fertility Identify the fertile spikelets by pressing the spikelets with the fingers and noting those that have no grains. Readings are obtained from counts of well-developed spikelets in proportion to total number of spikelets on five panicles. 8. Maturity Use the number of days from seeding to grain ripening (85% of grains on panicle are mature)

Mature grain

1 3 5 7 9

Difficult (less than 1 %) Moderately difficult (1-5%) Intermediate (6-25%) Loose (26-50%) Easy (51-100%)

Mature grain

1 3 5 7 9

Mature grain

Actual number of days

Growth stage Heading

Scales Centimeters

Heading

Centimeters

Booting to heading

1 2 3

Glabrous Intermediate Pubescent

Stem elongation to heading

1 2 3 4 5 6

Light green Green Dark green Purple tips Purple margins Purple blotch (purple mixed with green) Purple Green Purple lines Light purple Purple

Highly fertile ( >90%) Fertile (75-89%) Partly sterile (50-74%) Highly sterile (