Document(s) 24 de 38

Abstract: Promising Chaite (spring rice) rice varieties were randomly distributed among rice growers of 20 villages in the Western Hills of Nepal in 1991 through the Informal Research and Development (IRD) program of Lumle Agricultural Research Centre (LARC). The objective was to enhance decentralized selection of exotic varieties to specific niches and to meet the needs of farmers and thereby strengthen the varietal diversification process.

A survey conducted during June 1993 showed that all rice entries included in the study were adopted (at different locations) but that the varietal choice varied between the locations, indicating the need for varietal diversification.

Some 37% of respondents were growing the rice entries distributed through the IRD program and a further 57% were aware of these varieties and have asked for seed from the grower farmers. Pre-released varieties of Chaite rice were found spreading in the villages with food-balance and food-surplus farmers contributing most to the process. The farmers' network of information and seed exchange can be a very strong and cost-effective means of disseminating varieties and hence should be used in the process along with other grassroot-level institutions. Farmers use a combination of criteria such as early maturity, medium to tall plant height, easy threshability with high yield, good cooking quality and taste while assessing a rice variety. The major contribution of the IRD program has been the development of locally adapted varieties through the farmer participatory approach. It also offers the benefit of new genetic material to the farmers 5-6 years in advance of the formal system and helps promote genetic diversity through farmer-to-farmer seed exchange. It has also influenced the outreach research programs and helped to reorient them onto a farmer participatory tract.

Introduction

The formal research system in Nepal is organized along commodity-based programs. The research approaches used are too conventional and, in the case of food crops, it generally takes more than ten years for a promising variety to reach the stage of Farmers' Field Trial (FFT) and Minikit. It is an established fact that the formal research system is aiming for a few widely adapted crop varieties. Such varieties are generated in a limited number of research stations and under optimum growing environments through researcher-designed and managed experiments which may not be representative of the majority of domains in the country. Farmers cooperating in such experiments are little involved if at all, providing mostly the labor and ranking varieties in a standing crop (Kadayat et al., 1991). The active role of farmers in the technology generation, evaluation, selection and dissemination process is largely ignored (Haverkort, 1991), so is the diversity of farming systems. Low uptake of technologies developed through formal research is due to the lack of utilization of indigenous knowledge and socioeconomic issues while generating new technologies.

Agricultural research in Nepal is a relatively new. However, some of the achievements of modern agricultural development, such as the four-fold increase in the area under winter planted wheat, are noteworthy (Regmi, 1986). Yet the benefits of the majority of recent advances in agricultural technology are mainly limited to accessible areas. Disparity in the realization of the benefits of new technologies in Nepal does not only stem from the gap between smallholders and landlords, but also from the difference in the physiography of the country, infrastructure and institutional development, and level of education of the farmers. Nevertheless the issues of equity and remote areas have not been properly addressed by the formal research system so as to ensure that the gap between rich and poor does not increase.

The concept and evolution of Informal Research and Development

Methods of Informal Research and Development

1. The promising lines from advanced varietal trials or released varieties are selected and multiplied.

2. Seed packets of 250-500 g, depending on the crop species, are prepared, along with a printed response card with information on the objective of IRD, name of crop and variety, seed rate, recommended domain and date of planting. The response card also seeks information on the performance, preference, seed retention and reasons for liking/disliking a particular crop variety.

3. The number of varieties distributed in a village depends upon the nature of crop, availability of seed material and the diversity of the system.

4. Seed packets are distributed in two ways. One, through the extension network of different districts; another by distributing materials during visits, Samuhik Bhraman, monitoring tours, or through campaigns and surveys by LARC staff. IRD sets are distributed free of cost and on a random basis. The names and addresses of farmers to whom distributions are made are recorded in order to facilitate subsequent monitoring.

5. While distributing crop varieties, farmers are asked to decide themselves upon the exact terrace, aspect, altitude and time of planting, and the risk involved is also borne by them (Sthapit et al., 1991). In fact, farmers have complete freedom to set up the trials as appropriate to their own circumstances and methods, except that varieties should not be mixed either in the field or during or after post-harvest operations. The amounts of seed distributed are small and so the area under test ranges between 40-200 m per farmer, which allows for evaluation of the a genotype without threatening anyone's livelihood.

6. Farmers are not consciously selected while distributing the IRD packets, in order to avoid socio-economic bias. The locations for distributing IRD materials are largely governed by major recommendation domains.

7. The role of researchers/extensionist is to select appropriate materials, multiply and plan for distributing them and monitor crop varieties distributed under IRD.

8. The IRD program is considered as one of the major activities of Outreach Research and now is conducted jointly by outreach researchers and extensionists, with the help of outreach site-based recorders.

9. Regular monitoring was felt necessary both to know the suitability of technologies for different farmers with varying level of resources, socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds and also to determine the effectiveness of the IRD program per se.

10. Varietal testing, selection, maintenance and dissemination activities are all done by the farmers.

11. As per the initial approach, it was envisaged that cooperator farmers would return the response card and, based on this, it would be easy to monitor the performance of crop varieties distributed under IRD. However, this did not work and now the approach has been modified, particularly for monitoring the farmers' point of view. Concerned researchers and extensionists are also now involved in monitoring the program.

Background to Chaite rice

Methodology for monitoring of Chaite rice IRD

Table 1: Details of Chaite rice varieties included in the 1991 IRD program
Name of variety	Status of variety	Number of households covered	Important characteristics as recorded in designed experiment
NR 10158-2B-2	Pre-released	181	Plant height 110 cm, yield potential 3.7 t/ha, straw yield 11.5 t/ha and crop duration of 114 days.
IR 28128	Pre-released	601	Short plant stature; 55-80 cm, fine grain; compact grain setting, good yield potential; 4.9 t/ha, straw yield 17.5 t/ha and crop duration of 150 days
IR 13155	Pre-released	434	Plant height 74-105 cm, yield potential 3.9-4 t/ha, medium grain type, difficult to thresh, straw yield 12 t/ha and crop duration of 130-141 days, good cooking quality
Palung-2	Released for main season planting	28	Tall growing, yield potential 3.5 t/ha, poor seed dormancy, crop duration of 134 days.
Chaite-4	Released	527	Dwarf variety with 54-77 cm height, yield potential 4.7 t/ha, fine grain type, relatively difficult to thresh, straw yield 13 t/ha and crop duration of 134-171 days
IR 32419	Pre-released	32	Relatively dwarf with a plant height of 56-76 cm, yield potential 4.3 t/ha, straw yield 10 t/ha and crop duration of 140-171 days

Sampling frame and sample size

Field work and analysis

Limitations of the study

Findings

General background of the visited area

Three types of land use systems are prevalent in the foot hills and river basins namely; khet, bari and tars. Chaite rice is solely grown on khet (bunded and irrigated terrace) land, however, it interacts with bari (unbunded terraces) and tar (unirrigated flat land) as the crop has to compete for several farm resources with other land use systems.

The surveyed area had a mixed ethnic composition with Brahmin/Chhetri (56.5%), Gurung/Magar (13%), Darai/Kumal (14.1%), Tamang (5.4%) and others (10.9%). About 26% of the respondents owned up to 10 ropani of land (ropani is a local unit of land measurement; one ropani is equivalent to 500m), 32.6% had between 10-20 ropani of land and 33.6% had between 20-30 ropani of land, while only 7.6% had more than 30 ropani of land (Table 2). Irrespective of landholdings, 63% were within the food-surplus category, 22.8% in food-balance group, while 14.1% had food sufficiency for 3-8 months. All of the respondents of the food-deficit group had less than 20 ropani of land, while 33.3% of the food-balance farmers owned up to a maximum of 30 ropani, with only 12.1% of the food- balance group having over 30 ropani of land (Table 2). Information on the land tenure system revealed that out of 92 respondents 20 share-in land while 9 rent-out their lands.

Table 2: Food sufficiency level as influenced by size of landholding (# of respondents)
Food situation	Size of holding (ropani)				Total
	up to 10	10-20	20-30	>30
Food surplus Food balance (food lasts for one year) Food last for 3-8 months	10 5 9	17 9 4	24 7 -	7 - -	58 21 13
Total	24	30	31	7	92

Information on the sources of income in relation to landholding was also collected. The major source of income reported by the respondents was the sale of agricultural commodities. The proportion of farmers deriving income from this source increased with the increase in size of holding. People with small landholdings were found to engage more in off-farm labor and other activities as compared to farmers with larger holdings.

Farmers' attitude to IRD varieties for agronomic practices

The survey found that, in a majority of cases, the varieties distributed under the IRD program were treated in a more or less similar manner as the local varieties. Out of 92 respondents, 67% grew the IRD varieties on average fertility plots and on the same piece of land as was used for their local varieties. Seventy-nine percent of farmers applied the same level of organic and inorganic fertilizers. In 25% of cases, farmers grew IRD varieties on a better piece of land, while more organic manures and/or chemical fertilizers were applied only by 15% farmers. The majority of farmers (89%) planted the IRD materials at the optimum planting time and provided almost identical numbers of irrigation sessions both to local and IRD varieties (70.7%), while 19.6% of farmers provided above average irrigation. This pattern was similar for weeding and for the application of plant protection chemicals (Figure 1).

Figure 1: General husbandry practices adopted by the farmers for IRD varieties ralative to local cultivars.

However, it is common for farmers to screen the new/exotic varieties under adverse conditions (poor soil fertility, problematic soil or shady areas) during the first year of testing. As they gain confidence with the varieties, they treat them as they treat the local cultivars (Sthapit et al., 1995). These findings show that the production environment of Chaite rice is less diverse than that of other crops.

Farmers' perception of varietal performance

Figure 2: Farmers' perceptions of the plant height of IRD varieties relative to local cultivars

Responses collected for the maturity period of Chaite rice varieties show general agreement with the on-station results as most of the new entries are earlier or similar to CH-45 (Figure 3). In general, farmers need an early rice variety with a maturity period of around 150 days. Late varieties do not fit in a multiple cropping pattern, while early varieties suffer from rodents, birds and insect pest damage. The majority of respondents (65-100%) clearly identified that the IRD varieties (semi-dwarf varieties) were higher yielding as compared to farmers' locals. For example, some farmers harvested five moori (moori is a local unit for volumetric measurement of food grains; one moori of rice is equivalent to 48.8 kg) from one ropani of land where a local variety could have produced only two moori.

Figure 3: Maturity period of IRD varieties as perceived by respondents

Out of the 17 farmers who grew IR 13155, 12 (71%) reported that it was high yielding. Similarly, responses in favor of IR 10158, IR 28128, Chaite-4, and IR 44595 in terms of grain yield were 67, 69, 65 and 100 percent, respectively (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Grain yield of varieties as perceived by respondents

Post harvest characteristics, such as grain type, milling recovery, cooking quality, increase in volume of Bhat (cooked rice) on cooking, and quality of Bhat (less sticky and sustaining for long periods during hard work) are considered very important for a rice variety to be suitable for wide adoption. However, most of the respondents replied that they were not fully aware of the milling recovery and taste of cooked rice from the IRD varieties. This is not unusual as the evaluation of these parameters needs a large volume of rice for repeated testing and verification. Farmers also could not exactly recall the threshing problems associated with different Chaite rice varieties. The verification of this parameter is also limited due to the small amount that was grown.

Adoption level of Chaite rice varieties

The study tried to identify the level of adoption of Chaite rice varieties after farmers had tested them for two years and were growing them for a third. Farmers' familiarity with the names of the rice varieties distributed under IRD program was considered one of the indicators for farmers' awareness. In the study, only 23% of the respondents could correctly recall the names of the improved Chaite rice varieties when they were compared with local cultivars. Of these, 18% were food-surplus farmers, about 5% were food-balance farmers, while there were none from the food-deficit group. The study found that 37% of farmers surveyed were still growing the IRD varieties during the third year, whereas 63% had discontinued or did not wish to continue to grow them.

The report of the Samuhik Bhraman on Chaite rice revealed that a total of 2590 ha of land were covered by the crop in the survey area and 98% of Chaite rice in the same area was covered by a single variety CH-45 (Sthapit et al., 1990). An interesting finding is that IRD has offered varietal choice to early rice growers. In a period of three years, at least four pre-released varieties have been adopted by the farmers, though to varying degrees. It would be highly unlikely in the formal system for farmers to get seeds of pre-released varieties before the minikit stage i.e. within 10 years from the time of crossing. The IRD program has been successful at least in its objective of offering choice and enhancing the varietal diversification process.

The study tried to correlate expressed willingness and actual adoption levels of farmers. Though 58% expressed their willingness to continue with the Chaite rice varieties during the second year, only 37% eventually adopted those varieties (Table 3). However, this is not unusual as the preference judgements of farmers were based on just one year of experience and they were interviewed when the second crop was still in the field; they were unaware of post-harvest characteristics. The survey revealed that three seasons testing is not enough to allow farmers to evaluate post-harvest parameters such as milling recovery, taste as bhat and other qualitative factors.

Table 3: Preference and adoption level of different Chaite rice varieties
Varieties	Number of households 1992		Number of households 1993
	Surveyed	Willing to continue	Surveyed	Adopted
IR 13155 NR 10158 IR 28128 Chaite-4 IR 44595 Unidentified varieties	68 34 73 55 8 0	41 20 51 20 8 0	17 12 26 23 4 10	8 5 6 6 4 5
All	238	140	92	34

In general, the gap between the percentage of households "willing to continue" during the second year and those who have actually "adopted" during the third was similar in most cases, except for IR 28128 (Figure 5). The high level of rejection for IR 28128 was due to its poor cooking quality and taste, and low milling recovery because of high broken rice. In addition to these quality traits, the variety was a dwarf, which makes it difficult for carrying and threshing operations. The adoption level of the formally-released Chaite-4 is also low (Figure 5). Most of the deficiencies of Chaite-4 are similar to those of IR 28128. Farmers also reported that these varieties do not perform well at low fertility sites and are relatively late maturing.

Figure 5: Comparative study of farmers' preference (1992) and adoption level (1993) of Chaite rice varieties

IR13155 and NR 10158 had above 40% adoption which is clearly because of several relative advantages of growing these two varieties (Table 3). For example, NR 10158 is an early maturing variety and vegetable growers prefer this as it provides more time to grow winter vegetables. IR 13155 has good cooking qualities in addition its tall plant height and high yield. The reasons given for preferring varieties were mainly for their early and uniform maturity, compact grain setting, long and attractive panicles, high tillering, non-lodging characteristics and tolerance to disease.

The study found that farmers are experimenting with different Chaite rice varieties and, as a result, varietal replacement is common. Some of interesting examples from the study are as follows. Khem Narayan Kafle of Dhanubase Syangja was impressed with the performance of IR-44595 and adopted it, replacing IR-28128. He felt IR 44595 variety was high yielding, with longer seed dormancy, long and slender grains and long panicles. Conversely, farmers of Jholuengephant Gorkha rejected IR-44595 for its very poor cooking quality and high percentage of broken rice, as long grain rices break when milled in local rice hullers. IR-28128 variety was preferred by Top Bahadur Kumal of Gorkha and Dil Kumar Malla of Manahare, Tanahun, while Karunakar Pokhrel and Hari Prasad Pokhrel of Ganeshpur dropped the same variety because of its short straw height, low straw yield, and late maturity. The straw height of Chaite rice is important not only from the straw yield point of view, but also to ease threshing and carrying operations. Dwarf varieties such as IR-28128 are preferred only in high fertility conditions, where lodging of local varieties is a problem.

Lok Nath Sapkota of Ganeshpur Syangja and Damodar Sharma Baral dropped Chaite-4 because of its poor threshability, poor heading and high sterility, while the same variety was adopted by the farmers of Sepabagaincha and Yampaphant. The same farmer was aware of the IR-13155 variety, which was also distributed in the same village and planned to acquire seeds and adopt it.

Laxmi Adhikari, a female farmer at Sepabagaincha, and Nar Bahadur Ale, Huwas, had adopted IR-13155, replacing their existing variety CH-45. They saw IR-13155 variety as higher yielding, having a maturity suitable for multiple cropping, safe from shattering and having a good cooking quality. The variety also replaced IR-28128 at Bhoteodar because its high grain yield, tall plant height and good taste. However, the IR 13155 variety was initially not preferred by the farmers of Yampaphant where labor is constraining; it is difficult to thresh in spite of its high yield potential and good cooking qualities. Yet this variety was preferred by the farmers at Bhoteodar, Ganeshpur, Sepabagaincha, Huwas and near Damauli, the main reason being its high yield potential. Here farmers suggested that labor is not as important a constraint as land is and therefore they were willing to put some more labor on threshing IR 13155 to get some extra yield.

This information indicates the need for varietal diversification in Chaite rice, for which the IRD program strives. The high utility of IRD program is also demonstrated by these illustrations. The study revealed that farmers' choices of Chaite rice varieties varied within and between locations. This finding has clearly indicated that any one variety is highly unlikely to fulfil the diverse needs and preferences of farmers. The varying levels of adoption and rejection of chaite rice varieties also suggested the suitability of different rice varieties in different cropping patterns and socioeconomic conditions. Rural people are local experts and keen observers (Prain, 1993) and they study carefully different components of any new technology before adopting it. This is particularly true in a subsistence farming situation where different traits influence the adoption of a particular variety significantly. When choosing different crop varieties, farmers have specific criteria in mind (Sthapit et al, 1991) and are convinced only after thorough verification of them. The findings of this case study are very much in line with the observations of other researchers and this gives basic information needed in the research process.

Influence of socioeconomic factor in varietal adoption

Figure 6: Adoption level of different Chaite rice varieties across food sufficiency category

The varying level of adoption across food-sufficiency categories for different Chaite rice varieties indicates that any one variety cannot fulfil the varied requirements and therefore varietal diversification is IR 44595 had the highest level of adoption which was based on just one year of testing. Again, the sample was small and conclusions should be interpreted cautiously.

The association between landholding and adoption of Chaite rice varieties was similar to that of the food- sufficiency level. As the size of holding increased, farmers generally showed interest in testing new varieties, as they can bear more risk. The level of bearing such risk and eagerness to test new varieties was generally found to be low with food-deficit group having landholdings of 10 ropani or less. Similar information was also obtained for the interaction between level of income and varietal adoption. However, no clear trends emerged from the interaction between family size and level of adoption.

The role of gender in variety selection and adoption

The majority of respondents (95%) liked the idea of testing a small quantity seed of new Chaite rice varieties on their own farm. A total of 87% respondents expressed their willingness to participate in such a program, even if they encountered failures, as they believe that this type of program is an avenue for new technologies and new ideas. However 9% of the respondents were not willing to participate in this program, while 4% did not give any opinion.

Extension of Chaite rice varieties distributed under IRD

Another indicator was used to assess the contribution of the IRD program to the variety dissemination system through a farmer-to-farmer seed exchange network. Women farmers play a particularly significant role in this. Varieties are disseminated both in the form of seed and seedlings. It is a custom to provide a gift of a certain breed of animal or seed of popular variety to relatives. This particularly can happen when a newly married daughter goes to her husband's house (Joshi, 1995). In the survey, it was found that when ladies visited their parents they were gifted seeds or seedlings of new Chaite rice varieties. This general trend of spread of seeds was further analyzed on the basis of the food supply situation. Surplus farmers were the main people who distributed seeds to other farmers, though some amount of seed was also distributed by food-balance and food-deficit farmers, but mainly within the same village (Figures 7 and 8).

Figure 7: General pattern of seed flow through IRD

Figure 8: Distribution of IRD varieties by different food-sufficiency categories

These findings show that the IRD program is serving its objective of disseminating farmer-preferred rice entries through farmer-to-farmer networks and addressing the diverse needs of different categories of farmers. A number of new Chaite rice entries have spread to the area through this program, even in a limited area where CH-45 is still the predominant variety. Therefore, it has helped to promote genetic diversity.

Achievements of IRD

Shortcomings of IRD

Discussion

Varietal diversification is a sensible precaution for risk aversion in a rainfed and low external input agricultural system. Popular wisdom tells us that "betting on more than one horse reduces the risk" (Noordwijk and Andel, 1988). The study had clearly shown that varietal choice between the locations varied greatly, with choice largely being governed by the post-harvest qualities and utilities of Chaite rice. The IRD program has been successful in its objective of enhancing varietal diversification, as in a short period of three years, four pre-released varieties have been adopted by a considerable percentage of surveyed household.

Different characteristics of a particular variety, such as maturity period, straw height, grain quality, its adaptability to moderate or low fertility conditions, are the factors affecting adoption. Of the socioeconomic factors, tenancy system, size of holding, and food-sufficiency level are important. Many agricultural scientists believe that science-based knowledge and local knowledge system must be optimized in the agricultural research and development process (Haverkort, 1991; McCall, 1987) to make the program successful.

Unlike most of other on-farm testing exercises, the IRD program is run on the basis of farmers' participation, e.g., in variety testing, selection, maintenance and dissemination. Selection of inappropriate varieties or technologies by an individual farmer is less likely as all cultural practices such as land preparation, time of planting, use of organic or inorganic fertilizers, irrigation, weed management, harvesting and threshing are done by the farmer, without giving any special consideration to the new varieties. This also increases the chances of adoption of technologies selected from an IRD set, and the farmers' network of information and seed exchange is very strong, cost-effective, and is more stable than government organized services. At the same time, grassroot-level institutions such as seed growers, vegetable growers' association and such other groups should be mobilized for the cause of IRD--due to its effectiveness.

The problem of the slow and hierarchical process of varietal dissemination can be overcome by IRD programs, as promising varieties of crops can be distributed to farmers from the F7 stage onwards. This reduces almost by half the time otherwise required in a formal system, and is also a big saving in time and research effort.

The study of the different practices and treatments given by farmers to the cultivation of IRD varieties shows that there is not much difference between new varieties tested under IRD and local varieties in terms of manuring, time of planting and other cultural operations. Regarding the adoption level of Chaite rice varieties by farmers, it was noted that the actual adoption of the new technology depends upon numerous factors, and farmers are reluctant to adopt any new variety on a large scale in a short period of time. A minimum of four or five years was suggested to be appropriate for assessing the effectiveness of any such program.

Conclusions and recommendations

1. Based on survey findings, IRD has been found as an effective tool for: (a) offering varietal choice to farmers: several pre-released Chaite rice varieties have spread in the study area through this approach; (b) on-farm level variety testing and dissemination, (c) decentralized selection. Farmers are participating in the testing of advanced rice lines and experimenting with them on their heterogeneous fields. Farmers are willing to participate in such a program; therefore the approach should be continued in future. IRD allows farmers to evaluate technologies under a range of abiotic and biotic stresses not normally well-represented in the formal research system.

2. Varietal adoption does not only depend on biological yield, but also on a number of equally important quality characteristics. Consideration should be given to all the factors when developing new crop varieties, including indigenous knowledge systems.

3. To develop IRD as a fully farmer participatory program, seed packets of different crop varieties should not be distributed. Instead, farmers should be given the opportunity to choose from among available varieties. Include two to three diverse types of varieties per farmer to make the process of comparison easier.

4. The objective of the IRD should be clearly stated to farmers before distributing the seed packets. Similarly, giving farmers a quick overview of the salient features of the crop varieties would help farmers choose the right type of material.

5. The farmers' network of information and seed exchange is stable and more cost-effective and should be strengthened. The spread of IRD varieties through the farmer-to-farmer network has been effective. Women farmers have been identified as the important agents in spreading the seeds from one village to another and therefore should be made more aware of this type of program. Women farmers should also be involved in variety testing and verification, as they are more aware of the post-harvest handling aspects of the crops.

6. Improved record keeping is needed of participating farmers so as to monitor the farmer-to-farmer exchange of seed and adoption or rejection of a particular variety.

References

Gurung, H.B. and C. N. Floyd, 1991. Farming systems research and development: experience of Lumle Regional Agricultural Research Centre. Seminar Paper No. 30/91.

Gurung, H.B. and L.K. Amatya, 1992. Farmers participation in hill farming systems research and extension: experience of Lumle Regional Agricultural Research Centre. Seminar Paper No. 1992/20.

Haverkort, B., 1991. Farmers experiments and participatory technology development. In B. Haverkort, J. Vander Kamp and A. Waters-Bayer, eds., Joining Farmers Experiments: Experience in Technology Development. London:International Technology Publications.

Joshi, K.D. and B.R. Sthapit, 1990. Informal research and development (IRD): a new approach to research and extension. Discussion Paper 4/1990, Lumle Agricultural Research Centre, Nepal.

Joshi, K.D., C.B. Budhathoki, R.B. Rana, T.B. Gurung, H.P. Devkota, B.R. Sthapit, and K.D. Subedi, 1993. Rice Varietal Improvement Report. Working Paper No. 94/44.

Joshi, K.D., 1995. Seed regulatory frame works: Nepal, participatory and other alternative approaches to seed production and distribution in Nepal. A consultancy report prepared for Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London (draft).

Kadayat, K.B., E. Kiff, K.D. Joshi, and B.R. Sthapit, 1991. Extension implications of farmer participatory research. Seminar Paper No. 10/91. Paper prepared for Extension Research Workshop at Lumle Agricultural Research Centre 13-14 December, 1990.

Kadayat, K.B., K.D. Joshi, R.K. Kadariya, and S.P. Bhattarai, S.P., 1992. Research outreach program: experience of Lumle. Seminar Paper No. 3/1992.

Khatiwada, S.P., D.N. Chaudhari, B.P. Shah, A.K. Vaidya, K.P. Dhungana, and Y. Thakur, 1990. Varietal evaluation for double rice cropping. Paper presented at Fourth Summer Crops Workshop and Research Program Planning, February 4-9, Parwanipur, Nepal.

McCall, M. 1987. Indigenous knowledge systems as the basis for participation: East African potentials. Working paper No. 36, Enchede Technology Development Group, University of Twenley.

Noordwijk, M.V. and J.V. Andel, 1988. Reduction of risk by diversity. ILEIA 4 (No. 4):8-9.

Prain, G.D, 1993. Local knowledge and global resources: user participation and crop germplasm research. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor, 1 (No. 2) Special Issue.

Regmi, P.P, 1986. National wheat report 1985/86. Research accomplishments and development strategy. Paper presented at First Wheat Working Group Meeting, September 1-3. Siddharth Nagar, Nepal.

Rhoades, R. and A. Bebbington, 1988. Farmers who experiment: An updated resource for agricultural research and development. Paper presented at the International Congress on Plant Physiology, New Delhi.

Sthapit, B.R., B.K Dhital, H.B. Gurung, H.B., J.L. Jyoti, K.B. Kadayat, S.P. Khatiwada, D.N. Manandhar, R.R. Pandey, P.M. Pradhanang, A.L. Shah, D.N. Shah, G.L. Shrestha, and B.P. Tripathi, B.P., 1990. Findings of Chaite rice Samuhik Bhraman. Farmers practices and problems and need for future research. Working Paper No. 15/1990.

Sthapit, B.R., K.D. Joshi, and J.R. Witcombe, 1995. Farmer participatory high altitude rice breeding in Nepal: providing choice and utilizing farmers expertise. LARC Seminar Paper (forthcoming) (and this volume).

Subedi, K.D., K.D. Joshi, K.B. Kadayat, M. Subedi, J.P. Jaiswal, R.B. Rana, and L.K. Amatya, 1992. Lumle Rice Research Report 1991. Seminar Paper No. 5/92.

Footnotes:

1 The authors are, respectively, Agronomist/Breeder, Assistant Socio-economist, Agronomist, Outreach Agronomist and Senior Rice Breeder, Lumle Agricultural Research Centre. (See 'participant list' for full address.) The authors are thankful to all the participating farmers in different parts of the LARC Research Command Area, who contributed to making the approach successful. We are grateful to Dr. C.N. Floyd, Research Advisor, Mr. A. Vaidya, Socio-economist and Mr. R.R. Pandey, Entomologist for their valuable comments and advice on the manuscript and to Messrs Tika Karki and Shova Ram Devkota of Crop Science Section for their technical assistance. Our thanks to Drs. M. Loevinsohn and L. Sperling, IDRC, New Delhi and Dr. P.E. Harding, Director of LARC for supporting us in the seminar. Messrs Yam Gurung, R. Shrestha and K. Chhetri are gratefully acknowledged for word processing.

Lumle Agricultural Research Centre is funded by the Overseas Development Administration (ODA) of the British Government, and works in close collaboration with His Majesty's Government of Nepal (HMGN). The support of both governments is gratefully acknowledged. (BACK)

2 Chaite rice is the rice culture grown in lower altitude areas witwhere there are assured irrigation facilities. It is seeded in February, transplanted in the Nepali month of Chaite (March/April) and harvested before mid July. The crop is also known as Judi Dhan/Hiunde Dhan. (BACK)

Document(s) 24 de 38