Rice science and farmers

Gone are the heydays of scientists’ old blanket prescriptions on pest control and fertilizer application. A paradigm shift from prescriptions to decisions has occurred, and this is proven by new concepts and technologies that are often shared with farmers using the participatory approach. In this chapter of her book Rice in Our Life, Philippine national scientist and outstanding rural sociologist Dr. Gelia Castillo talks about rice science technologies and products, including some of the IRRC technologies.

When, in 1961, the International Rice Research Institute rose from Higamot Hill, which was once a rustic area planted to coconuts, citrus, bananas, and pineapples, a well-known Filipino educator who was visiting the place said: “Somehow I find it difficult to see the connection between this 20th-century Institute and the man who plants rice.”

Five years after that remark, IRRI turned over to the Philippine government 50 tons of IR8 seeds. In addition, IRRI distributed 5 tons in two-kilogram packages to the first 2,359 farmers to request such seed in person at the Institute. The press popularized these seeds as miracle rice. It was said that within exactly a year of the release of IR8 seeds, adequate seed supplies were available to meet local demand.

This was also the start of a new era, dubbed as the Green Revolution, in the deliberate and intensified connection between rice science and the rice farmer. These seeds and their many successors, which are the products of rice science, have reached farmers even in remote areas. Some insightful lessons, experiences, observations, and research findings from relevant R&D activities are cited here to illustrate what the new thinking contributes to the knowledge-intensive character of emerging rice cultural management practices.

Integrated pest management (IPM)

The concept of IPM is intellectually seductive. It is not a package of technology for pest control. It involves new ways of thinking, seeing, and doing things not only on the part of farmers but of extension
workers, researchers, policymakers, and the pesticide
industry. IRRI’s perspective on IPM includes the basic premise that “no single pest control method can be successful over a long period of time.” IPM combines resistant cultivars, agronomic practices known to reduce losses due to pests, and conservation practices that preserve and increase natural enemies.

Researcher Bong Villareal shows how to catch insects during the IRRI Rice Production Course in 2006. She emphasized IPM principles of distinguishing pests from predators and using chemicals for pest control as the last resort.

Integrated nutrient management (INM)

The simple rule, “Feed the rice plant as needed” is a very appropriate description of INM. It applies to nutrients, water, and pesticides, and implies timing, amounts, and what inputs to feed. This is quite a contrast to the blanket prescriptions for fertilizer applications of yesteryear. The current concept is site-specific nutrient management (SSNM), which is an “information-and technology-based agricultural management system to identify, analyze, and manage site soil, spatial, and temporal variability within fields for optimum profitability, sustainability, and protection
of the environment.”

In this approach, “farmers’ knowledge and experience
become vital for the efficient management of nutrients in these environments.” It is a knowledge-intensive process for both scientists and farmers.

The leaf color chart and the minus-one element technique are examples of simple tools that deliver simple messages to farmers to assist them in making decisions about when, how much, and what nutrients to apply.

Controlled irrigation and water-saving

Rice is a “thirsty” crop and the production of 1 kilogram of rice requires an average of 3,000 liters of water. Increasing scarcity of water has brought water-saving technology in the form of controlled irrigation to a test for farmers’ adaptation and adoption using a farmer participatory approach.

Controlled irrigation, also known as alternate wetting and drying, entails an irrigation schedule in which, contrary to the normal practice of continuous
flooding, water is applied to the field a number of days after the disappearance of ponded water. Just like pesticides and fertilizers, water must now be used judiciously, but the use of irrigation water is much more difficult to control because it is a common
property resource that is often collectively managed.

After a 3-year implementation of controlled irrigation in a study in Tarlac, Philippines, farmers found no yield difference between their practice and that of controlled irrigation using less water. Water savings were about 20–30% compared with their traditional practice. Controlled irrigation saved time, labor, and expenses because farmers did not spend as much time in irrigation.

Seeing is believing is not enough

Based on what we have learned from IPM, INM, and collective action experiences, seeing is believing “will no longer suffice.” Some, if not most, of what is involved in integrated crop management, in growing a healthy crop with minimal health and environmental costs, is not going to be directly visible to the naked eye and will not always be immediately experienced.
Seeing and thinking not only in the abstract but also in the future must be learned. The pedagogy of this learning process, particularly the social learning part, has scarcely begun to unravel.

We know, however, that we need to make significant additions to the old adage “To see is to believe” such as

To do is to believe; to use is to believe; to know is to believe; to understand is to believe; but to adapt is to succeed for adaptation localizes the application of ecological principles and the practice of technology.

Gelia Castillo, photos by Trina Mendoza

Research streams archive