the impact of maize and rice varieties from client

COMMENTARY

SABRAO Journal of Breeding and Genetics 45 (1) 132-142, 2013

THE IMPACT OF MAIZE AND RICE VARIETIES FROM CLIENT ORIENTED BREEDING ON THE LIVELIHOODS OF POOR FARMERS IN WESTERN INDIA J.P.YADAVENDRA*1 and J.R. WITCOMBE2 1 Gramin Vikas Trust, Chakaliya Road, Dahod-389 151, Gujarat, India CARIAD, College of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2UW, Wales, UK. Corresponding author’s email: [email protected]

2

SUMMARY Limited participation of farmers in agricultural research and extension can result in the low uptake of new farm technologies including the use of modern varieties. Participatory approaches can be used to rapidly and costeffectively identify the best existing varieties in a process termed participatory varietal selection (PVS). However, client-oriented breeding (COB) approaches can produce more readily-adopted varieties compared to those identified by PVS. In COB, varieties are bred to specifically meet the requirements of the client farmers. The impact of new rice (Ashoka 200F and Ashoka 228) and maize (GM-6) varieties developed through COB in India, on the livelihoods of farmers was surveyed in a sample of farmers in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan states of western India. High yields and other traits such as improved grain quality and earlier maturity were characteristics of the new varieties. New varieties of rice, Ashoka 200F and Ashoka 228 bred by COB in eastern India improved both household food self-sufficiency and seed sales. Farmers reported considerable impacts on their livelihoods with seed sales in maize increasing by 51% and food lasting for more than one additional month. Farmers growing the new maize variety in western India reported an overall increase between 10 to 20% in their total income. The impact of the rice varieties was less (26%) as rice generally occupies a smaller proportion of the farmers’ land. While those impacts were achieved using seeds supplied from a project, the challenge to produce a sustainable and affordable seed supply system still remains. Farmers distributed seed to others only after keeping sufficient seed for growing the variety on their own farm. Seed availability from formal channels is crucial if impact is to be rapid and if seed is to be available after poor harvests in drought years. However, seed supply from the formal seed sector has still not addressed the needs of poor farmers in remote villages. Additional forms of seed supply to the poor farmers are required. GVT has facilitated a community-based seed production and supply in the project area and, in the cases documented so far, it has been successful. The seed producers’ company could be a solution for seed supply to poor farmers.

Keywords: client oriented breeding; maize; rice; impact; producer-company. Manuscript received: June 11, 2012; Manuscript accepted: August 28, 2012. © Society for the Advancement of Breeding Research in Asia and Oceania (SABRAO) 2013 Communicating Editor: Bertrand Collard

INTRODUCTION Maize (Zea mays L.) and rice (Oryza sativa L.) are important rainy season crops for the indigenous (tribal) populations in the hill districts of western India in the states of Gujarat,

Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. The crops are grown in low fertility soils on undulating land and agriculture is a risky enterprise with severe droughts occurring of once in five years (on average).

SABRAO J. Breed. Genet. 45 (1) 132-142

Successful PVS in Western India

Recent research-extension activities have not generally led to the use of modern varieties, so most farmers were still growing maize and rice landraces. A key assumption was that adoption of new varieties was poor not because of unwillingness to adopt new technologies, or non-availability of good varieties, but because low-resource farmers in remote areas had no access to such varieties. This problem was addressed through, participatory varietal selection (PVS), a farmer participatory approach for identifying improved crop cultivars or varieties (Witcombe et al., 1998; Joshi and Witcombe, 1996). However, the varieties identified by PVS were those preexisting and not specifically bred to meet the requirements of the poor farmers in the target areas. A successful PVS program has four phases: 1. Participatory evaluation to identify farmers’ needs in a cultivar; 2. A search for suitable varieties to test with farmers; 3. Experimentation on their acceptability in farmers’ fields; 4. Wider dissemination of the farmer preferred cultivars. One of the great strengths of PVS is that it is both an extension and a research method. Varieties tested in PVS, if acceptable, can rapidly spread from farmer to farmer. Most of the PVS program in the GVT projects in India have used a mother and baby trial system (Witcombe and Yadavendra, 2006). The mother trials are used to compare all the entries together in a farmer’s field. They are researcher designed but farmer-managed. Each trial is a single replicate as it has only one plot of each variety. However, the trials are replicated across villages and across farmers within each village. They not only serve as demonstration plots or focal points for discussions, but provide quantitative, analyzable data on yield and other traits. In baby trials, farmers compare a single variety (or sometimes two varieties) with the variety they have grown in the past. By giving different varieties to different farmers all of the promising new varieties from the mother trials can be tested in the baby trials.

The varieties below are ones that farmers preferred in the PVS trials during 1992 through 1999 and several of them have subsequently been released. At the time of the participatory trials nearly all of them were either unreleased advanced lines or varieties that were not recommended for the areas where the PVS trials took place. • Rainfed maize: Shweta and ZM 421 • Chickpea: ICCV 88202 (Pratap Chana 1), ICCV 2 and KAK 2 • Blackgram: IU8-6 (JU-8-6) • Upland rice: Kalinga III • Horsegram: AK-42 Participatory plant breeding techniques were used to produce more appropriate varieties. However, it is more useful to describe it as client orientated breeding (COB) since the term explains high client orientation (Witcombe and Yadavendra, 2006). All breeding programmes have some degree of client-orientation but COB are programmes where explicit and systematic efforts are made to involve the clients. Using the purpose rather than the process provides for a more rigorous examination of the analytical framework, and why and when farmers should be involved. Client-oriented breeding (COB) The conventional plant breeding techniques that produced the Green Revolution gave impressive results in the more favorable agricultural environments. They have been less effective for low-resource farmers who cultivate poorly productive or marginal land. In comparison to centralized breeding, farmer participatory approaches in plant breeding result in a better orientation to the needs of the client farmers. In the past, such approaches have been described by the activity of involving farmers – participatory plant breeding (PPB). We now prefer to use a term that explains the purpose of involving farmers – highly client-oriented breeding (COB). Each stage of COB is designed to better account for the needs of the clients:

133

Yadavendra & Witcombe (2013)

1. The new variety is specifically designed to have the combination of traits that the client farmers desire. 2. The parents are very carefully chosen on the basis of having the potential to produce this desired combination. At least one is locally adopted by farmers. 3. Selection in segregating generations is done in environments that closely match the fields of the client farmers. 4. The results of this selection, new varieties, are immediately tested with the client farmers in PVS trials.

participatory rural appraisals and PVS trials provide avenues, using which, maize and rice varieties could be bred. We report here the impact of new maize and rice varieties developed in the Gramin Vikas Trust (GVT) project area encompassing the tribal region of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan in Western India. A survey using a household questionnaire was used to ascertain the impact of new maize and rice varieties on the livelihoods of farmers who had access to seeds of the new varieties (Yadavendra et al. 2006). The process of COB is indicated in Table 1. An example of the breeding methodology is shown in Figure 1. For rainfed maize, the variety GM-6 was released in western India. This was originally released in Gujarat and has now been recommended in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh as well. For upland rice, the varieties Ashoka 200F (BVD 109) and Ashoka 228 (BVD 110), originally released in Jharkhand (Eastern India), were released. Ashoka 200F has now also been recommended in Gujarat, MP and Rajasthan, and Ashoka 228 in MP. In India, the area under directly-sown and transplanted rice is around 60 and 40% respectively. The total number of varieties released/recommended by National Agricultural Research Stations (NARS) is more than 700. However, 90% of the production area is covered by less than 20 varieties including Swarna, Mahsuri, IR64, Kalinga-III, Vandana, and Sathi 36-34. Relatively speaking despite huge funding, there have been not so many useful outcomes. Under a western India rainfed farming project the GVT implemented the crop improvement programmes including rice grown by the indigenous (tribal) populations in the hill districts of western India in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. In those districts, maize is usually cultivated on marginal soils under rainfed conditions and low-input management. Rainfall is low and erratic. The project area receives in 30 to 40 rainy days 700 to 1100 mm of rain in a year. Droughts are frequent; they occur almost once in five years and cause widespread crop failure. Surveys designed to study the take up of the new improved varieties by farmers. The

COB is more powerful than PVS alone because it creates new variability rather than relying on existing varieties. In COB, we use varieties selected by farmers from PVS trials as parents of crosses because they are adapted and acceptable. The main principle of COB is that the ultimate client for the varieties is the farmer. Farmers sometimes identify specific weaknesses in a variety; these can be eliminated by crossing it with a parent chosen for its complementary strengths. One great advantage of COB is that it is much faster than conventional breeding because new varieties are immediately (mostly in F5 or F6 generation) tested with farmers. In summary the benefits of COB include: • Cost effective, due to its small scale • Few crosses are made, and hence few populations are developed • Trials are located in a farmer’s field (PVS) • Dissemination of new seed to the farmers when tested at their fields • Possible release of the variety can be quick Examples of successful COB in Western India A problem with traditional variety release is that farmers know about the variety only when front line demonstrations are organized after the release. Furthermore, Incorporation of traditional wisdom is very limited. When improved efficiency (rather than participation for its own sake) is sought, selections in segregating generations may not be made by farmers. But it is important to understand client needs, and

134


research component) of the GVT western India rainfed farming project. Some surveys were a follow-up from those conducted in February 2004.

impact of project-developed or identified varieties of rice and maize was studied through designed survey questionnaire from June to November 2004 (Tables 2, 3 and 4) by GVT staff or by staff of the State Agricultural Universities collaborating in Component C (the

Table 1. Client-oriented techniques for each stage of breeding

Stage 1. Variety specifications

Components Participatory rural appraisal (ask farmers) through: • Base line • Expert knowledge • Experimentation • Varietal diversity • Traits of existing varieties • Target domain

2. Selection

Generating diversity • Clever crosses • Meets farmers needs Selecting in segregating generations • Match selection environment with target to farmers’ fields With farmers (PVS) coupled with Research Stations of SAUs Community based (with farmers) or formal after release • Surveys • Livelihood analysis • Spread or coverage

3. Variety testing 4. Seed supply 5.Outcome assessment

Table 2. Summary of the surveys conducted in GVT project villages in 2004. Name of intervention

State1

Rice

Guj MP Raj

Maize

Guj MP Raj

1

Organisation conducting survey2 AAU GVT JNKVV GVT MPUAT Total AAU GVT JNKVV GVT MPUAT Total

Survey month July June June-July June July August June June-Aug. August April-June

Farmers interviewed (number) 52 21 47 15 30 165 24 22 25 26 33 130

Villages (number) 5 4 9 5 7 30 4 6 6 4 6 26

Guj = Gujarat; MP = Madhya Pradesh; Raj = Rajasthan. AAU = Anand Agricultural University; JNKVV = Jawaharlal Nerhu Krishi Vishwa Vidhyalaya; MPUAT = Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology.

2

135


Bulk population breeding for Ashoka 200F Kalinga III

X

IR64

F1 raised and harvested. F2 of 10,000 plants. Continue with large number of the plants to F3 to preserve variability F3 lines advanced to F4

F4 bulks - Farmers select in bulk F5 bulk - Seed multiplication Test on station and on-farm (PVS) – F6 generation Figure 1. Methodology of client oriented breeding of rice

Table 3. Summary of the maize surveys for adoption of GM-6 and ZM-421 conducted in GVT project villages in 2004. Variety State GM-6 Guj Guj MP MP Raj ZM-421 Guj Guj MP MP Raj

Organisation conducting survey

Villages (number) Common Individual Villages Villages

2000

2001

2002

2003

Total

AAU GVT JNKVV GVT MPUAT Total

2 2 2 2 0 4

2 4 2 4 6 18

8 8

2 23 6 31

20 3 2 11 15 51

1 11 1 18 31

21 16 25 26 33 121

AAU GVT JNKVV GVT MPUAT Total

2 2 0 0 0 2

2 3 4 1 2 12

14 5 12 3 0 34

1 3 9 13

15 8 12 3 9 47

136


Table 4. Summary of the rice surveys conducted in GVT project villages in 2004. Organisation Variety conducting State survey Ashoka 200F Guj AAU Guj GVT MP JNKVV MP GVT Raj MPUAT Total Ashoka 228 Guj AAU Guj GVT MP JNKVV MP GVT Raj MPUAT Total Kalinga III† Guj AAU Guj GVT MP JNKVV MP GVT Raj MPUAT Total

Villages (number) Common Individual Villages Villages

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Total

1 1 1 1 0 2

1 1 4 0 5 11

10 3 5 1 13 32

3 0 8 1 13 25

13 3 13 2 26 57

1 1 2 2 0 3

4 1 6 0 5 16

18 4 8 1 13 44

3 0 14 6 13 36

21 4 22 7 26 80

1 1 4 4 0 5

3 3 1 0 7 14

15 9 7 5 2 38

0 0 0 0 0 0

23 18 17 8 30 96

1 2

3

2 1 6 2 20 31

5 8 2 1 8 24

†For Kalinga III, adoption data was collected from 94 farmers and perception data from 90 farmers.

Table 5. Seed of maize and rice varieties distributed in the GVT project area during 2001 to 2004. Seed distributed (tonnes) Year

Maize

Rice

ZM 421

Kalinga III

Ashoka 200F

Ashoka 228

2001

GM-6 ---

1.1

9.2

0.3

0.1

2002

15.3

1.4

10.4

22.4

4.3

2003

2.9

3.5

10.7

16.9

2004

29.9 ---

---

0

3

6.1

Total

45.2

4.4

23.1

16.1

28

had been working for several years. In total, 294 farmers were interviewed in a total of 40 different villages (11 in Gujarat, 16 in MP and 13 in Rajasthan).

The surveys included only those farmers who were known to have had an opportunity to try them. Seeds were widely distributed by the project (Table 5). Hence, surveys were made in villages of the GVT project where the project

137


the same maturity as the local check, but opinions were equally divided on it being late or early-maturing. Although a considerable proportion of farmers reported that the varieties were better for consumption, this was not reflected in market price, where those varieties were reported to fetch invariably the same price as the local variety. This indicates that grain merchants and consumers do not distinguish between different qualities of white maize in the market. All the three rice varieties were markedly preferred by farmers for the important traits of early maturity, high grain yield and high grain quality (Figure 3). However, all three were inferior in fodder production. Surprisingly, though the Ashoka varieties gave higher yield compared to Kalinga III, they did not get a higher score for this trait; the only difference was that many farmers reported that Kalinga III yielded less grain than the local. However, the superiority of the Ashoka varieties was reflected in the adoption data (see Figure 4).

Maize farmers were asked questions regarding two varieties: GM-6, bred in India (Witcombe et al. 2003) and ZM-421, introduced into India from the International Centre for Maize and Wheat Improvement (CIMMYT), Zimbabwe. Farmers were asked questions about the level of adoption, the variety’s traits and details on seed that they received. Rice farmers were asked questions similar to those in maize. The rice varieties evaluated were Ashoka 200F and Ashoka 228 bred using client-oriented techniques (Virk et al. 2003) and Kalinga III that had been identified by PVS (Joshi and Witcombe 1996) and had spread rapidly from farmer-to-farmer in the project area (Witcombe et al. 1999). Farmers’ perceptions of the varieties Farmers perceptions on the two maize varieties were favourable with significantly more farmers preferring both varieties for grain yield, fodder yield and cooked food quality (Figure 2) than those who preferred the local variety. However variety ZM 421 was perceived by farmers to be

Figure 2. Farmers’ perceptions of maize varieties GM-6 and ZM-421 relative to local checks.

138


Figure 3. Farmers’ perceptions of three rice varieties, Ashoka 200F, Ashoka 228 and Kalinga III relative to local checks.

Figure 4. Adoption as a percentage of farmers who had been given seed of GM-6 and the proportion of maize land they devoted to this variety.

139


Impact of the new maize and rice varieties on livelihoods.

Adoption of the new maize and rice varieties All the farmers who received to seed of GM-6 grew it in the first year in 2001 (Figure 4). After the first year, farmers did not grow the variety. However, those who grew the variety again allotted more area (Figure 4). The most probable explanation for this pattern of adoption is that some farmers did not prefer the variety and yet others who preferred it, had not saved seed. Farmers who grew it a second time in 2003, also grew it in 2004. Farmers who were given Ashoka 200F or Ashoka 228 continued to grow it in the three years. They allotted increased land in 2003 and 2004. Farmers replaced Kalinga III with these new varieties as evidenced by its reduction in the area, so the proportion of continuing adopters fell and the rate of increase in the amount of land slowed (Figure 5).

Farmers reported considerable impacts on their livelihoods with seed sales in maize increasing by 51% and food lasting by more than one month. Out of the 77 farmers, 41 growing the new maize varieties reported an overall increase between 10 to 20% in their total income (Table 6). The impact of the rice varieties was less (26%) as rice occupies, on average, a smaller proportion of the farmers’ land. It is also more difficult for farmers to answer questions about food availability, as rice is generally not the most important staple food. However, this qualitative examination of the Table 6 gave useful information without having to collect data on total household economics. The new varieties give considerable benefits. Farmers perceived the superiority of the traits of new varieties. Those who had access to seeds and derived benefits continued to grow them. This strongly suggests that newly-bred varieties would spread if seeds are made available to farmers and the yield and quality of the varieties are acceptable.

Figure 5. Adoption as a percentage of farmers who had been given seed of the Ashoka varieties (Ashoka 200F and Ashoka 228 combined) or Kalinga III and the proportion of rice land they devoted to this variety.

140


Table 6. Farmers’ perceptions on the impact of the new maize and rice varieties on their livelihoods.

Seed sales (t) Before 34 3.9

After 52 (56%) 4.9 (26%)

Food self sufficiency (months) Before 10.0 6.2

After 11.3 7.7

Impact on livelihoods (% increase in total income) 0 % (no of farmers) 0 0

>0-10% (no. of farmers) 27 102

10-20% (no. of farmers) 41 41

20-30% (no. of farmers) 4 4

30-40% (no. of farmers) 1 0

>40% (no. of farmers) 14 0

In GVT research, the emphasis was on breeding new varieties. This has many advantages compared to other possible changes in agricultural technology implement by a farmer: a) Plant breeding research has a high potential cost benefit ratio (breeding and selecting new varieties is very inexpensive compared to the potential benefits). b) The cost benefit ratio of adopting new varieties is high for farmers (the additional cost of seed can be zero if farmer-saved seed is used and the gains in yield can be substantial). c) No extra knowledge is required to grow new varieties as they do not require changes in management practices and d) Increasing adoption of the new variety can occur without the need of external interventions if the seed spreads from farmer to farmer.

The introduction of Ashoka 200F and Ashoka 228 in eastern India showed that the income earned reduced the need to borrow money and also created social benefits related to improved style of living (Mottram, 2005). However, such benefits were reported only by farmers who had adopted a new variety. Adequate availability of seed could have large and widespread effects. The general trend however, is that farmers distributed seed to others only after keeping sufficient seed for increased area on their own farm. Seed availability is crucial if impact is to be rapid and also to counter poor harvests in drought years. Seed supply from the formal seed sector has still not addressed the needs of poor farmers in remote villages. The formal sector:

Nonetheless, the price of food grains is either declining or remaining static, and hence increase in crop productivity is unstable. However, the benefits of a new variety are not restricted to the value of the additional harvest. Additional benefits are obtained, for example, when increased cash contributes to off-farm economy or provides additional labour opportunities in agriculture. Farming system can also provide additional income from crop diversification. Farmers tend to prioritise production of their staple food while increased productivity can free land for alternative, and more profitable crops. Early maturing varieties can facilitate timely harvest of post-rainy season (rabi) crops (Witcombe and Yadavendra, 2006).

•

• •

Mainly produces high value certified seed, which poor farmers cannot afford Seed outlets are situated in distant areas from the residential areas of poorer farmers Seeds of varieties preferred and most appropriate for poor farmers (e.g. openpollinated varieties of maize or upland varieties of rice) are seldom produced by government agencies.

Additional forms of seed supply for the poor farmers are required. GVT has facilitated community-based seed production and supply in the project area and, in the cases documented so far, it has been successful. This approach needs to be further developed and expanded as an alternative to conventional seed supply.

141


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. We wish to thank the people who were directly associated with this work in Western India Rain fed Farming Project of Gramin Vikas Trust, maize and rice scientists of Anand Agricultural University at Godhra and Nawagam, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, at Agricultural Research Station, Banswara and Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Campus – Indore and KVK, Jhabua.

REFERENCES: Witcombe JR, Virk DR, Farrington J (1998). Seeds of choice: Making the most of new varieties for small farmers. Oxford and IBH Publishing, New Delhi and Intermediate Technology Publishing, London Joshi A, Witcombe JR (1996). Farmer participatory crop improvement II: Participatory varietal selection in India. Exp Agric. 32: 461-477. Witcombe JR, Yadavendra JP (2006). Cultivating Partnershis: Better Choices for Rainfed farming. Gramin Vikas Trust, KRIBHCO Bhavan, NOIDA, India Witcombe JR, Joshi A, Goyal SN (2003). Participatory plant breeding in maize: A case study from Gujarat, India. Euphytica 130: 413-422 Virk DS, Singh DN, Kumar R., Prasad SC, Gangwar JS, Witcombe JR (2003). Collaborative and consultative participatory plant breeding or rice for the rainfed uplands of eastern India. Euphytica 132: 95-108. Witcombe JR, Petre R., Jones S, Joshi A (1999). Farmer participatory crop improvement. IV. The spread and impact of a rice variety identified by participatory varietal selection. Exp. Agric. 35: 471-487. Mottram A (2005). Impact of New Upland Rice Varieties in Eastern India from ClientOriented Breeding: Evidence from Whole Village Surveys. CAZS Natural Resources (CAZS-NR), University of Wales, Bangor, UK. Yadavendra JP, Patel VP, Witcombe JR (2006). The impact of new maize and rice varieties on the livelihoods of poor farmers in marginal agricultural areas of western India. Paper presented at the livelihoods Summit, Udaipur, September 27-30, 2005. In: Livelihoods-as if the poor matter, IFFCD, New Delhi.pp 36-37.

142