Participatory breeding, on-farm seed management and genetic resource conservation methodology: a sustainable agriculture R & D model: Centre de recherches pour le développement international

Centre de recherches pour le développement international (CRDI)

English - Español

Archives Web > Publications du CRDI > Livres en ligne > Tous nos livres > USING DIVERSITY >

Explorateur

Personnes

ID : 85279

Ajouté le : 2005-07-21 10:06

Mis à jour le : 2005-07-21 10:11

Refreshed: 2012-02-11 23:32

Cliquez ici pour obtenir le URL du fichier en format RSS

Participatory breeding, on-farm seed management and genetic resource conservation methodology: a sustainable agriculture R & D model

Document(s) 28 de 38

D.M. Maurya

Abstract: This paper describes participatory breeding research in Uttar Pradesh which matches qualities of farmers' local cultivars with qualities of advanced breeding lines. Focusing on the multiple benefits of genetic diversity, it explores the practical implications of expanding such a program. Three areas of agricultural research and development are signalled: the plant breeding system, seed management structures and germplasm conservation programs.

Introduction

In spite of all our family welfare efforts at government and non-governmental levels, the population of India is still increasing at rate of 2.17%. In view of this fact, we have to increase the quantum of our food, feed, fibre and agro-product supply at a matching rate. There are two techniques to enhance the biological/agricultural production: first, by manipulations of the genetic materials (hereditary); second, through the manipulation of non-genetic (environmental and management) factors.

Participatory plant breeding

Genetic enhancement

Plant and animal breeders always make efforts to have access to genetic variability, either naturally- occurring or created/induced. Out of the whole available, variable mass, they then rigorously search, isolate and pick out the more efficient genotypes (individual), which, when raised under real farming situations, ensure greater yields of fruits, grains, fibre, milk, meat, wool and or other products useful to men and their livestock. Even a slight genetic improvement in yield is important and remunerative as it continues to occur again and again in the progenies of the improved varieties (i.e. it is heritable).

Contribution of plant breeding

Since independence, India has made tremendous progress in the field of agriculture: from an era of "begging bowl", we have witnessed an era of "self-sufficiency". The progress in research is well reflected by increases in the production and productivity of various important crop commodities. Since Independence, the foodgrain production has increased almost 3.5 times, from about 50 metric tons during 1950-51 to 181 metric tons in 1993-94, with all-time record production of 18.46 metric tons of oilseeds and 14.06 metric tons of pulses. Since 1951, the yield of wheat and potato has gone up 7 times, maize 4 times, and rice, sugarcane, cotton and sorghum 3 times. We produced 138 metric tons of foodgrains in 1987-88, despite the worst drought year of the century.

Need to encompass the whole production system

Standard plant breeding has generally had the 'crop' as the center of focus. However, it is becoming clear that greater production with enhanced sustainability is possible only by examining the entire production system and modifying individual crops to better fit within the overall cropping pattern. Changes in plant maturities and plant architecture are common considerations. Such a perspective is also relevant for integrated nutrient and water management plans aimed at sustainable agriculture.

Plant breeding concept of 'best'- an illogical and naive issue

Using the modern concept of 'best', efforts are being made by plant breeders throughout world to evolve a genotype which will excel everywhere and all times: i.e., they aim for wide adaptation. However, no variety can perform in a consistently 'excellent' or 'best' manner under all growing/farming area/contexts and over the long term, and still satisfy the needs of millers, traders and consumers equally. Thus, it is an illogical and naive concept to talk of the 'best variety'. Different varieties may be best in different locations, situations, and systems, through time and for different purposes. A variety may perform best in one farming situation but be the poorest in another. For example, a rice genotype best in deepwater zones can never be best under irrigated, well-managed areas or rainfed upland farming situations: these situations demand variable architectural requirements.

In fact, 'new and best' varieties are not perennially 'new and best'. These qualities are not fixed, they are subject to variation and change. A permanent and universal adoption is impossible. Disease resistance is never stable, cultivation practices may be modified over years. Storage and processing patterns may also change over time and space. Although plant breeders regularly register 'successes', many factors restrict the achievement to a specific time and spatial frame. It is very difficult to combine all desired attributes into a single genotype: resistance/tolerance for all diseases and insects, and abiotic factors; needed agronomic traits and qualities; features which will help meet farmers' future needs and aspirations.

Participatory plant breeding approach

The evidence from the Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology (NDUAT) experiments strongly indicates that a participatory approach to agricultural research can allow rainfed lines to be selected which are generally compatible with the characteristics of traditional varieties, and which out-perform them on one or more criteria. The improved lines which have been 'matched' with farmers' traditional ones are not (as has been the case up to now) the official product of several years of on-station breeding effort. Rather, there have been lines being used as breeding material which have shown promising resistance to stress in the early stages of screening (Maurya, Bottral and Farrington, 1988). By short-circuiting the official breeding and release procedures in this way, a dozen distinctly promising lines have identified by farmers within a much shorter period than normally necessary to produce only one (and, at that, perhaps unacceptable) official release (Ibid.).

This breeding approach is decentralized and participatory in character and comprises six stages:

Whole village emphasis
Diagnosis of the real farmers' concerns
Analysis of farmers' materials, methods and resources
Matching new lines/technology with farmers' materials and techniques
Sharing small batches of improved materials with farmers through participatory trials
Joint evaluation (farmers and scientists)

Whole village emphasis: The general practice so far in rural and village research and development program has been to select a few farmers or farm families to conduct experimentation. The leftovers in this approach feel social discrimination or dissatisfaction. Keeping this fact in view, we at Faizabad have adopted 'the whole village concept'. Equal opportunity is provided to everyone in the village to participate in experimentation. Such an approach provides researchers an opportunity to explore various issues; the whole range of ecological, management and socio-economic variability within the village are encompassed. The village is taken as a coherent and integrated system.

Diagnosis of farmers' real concerns: Apart from the differences in the cropping techniques and levels of stress to which plants are exposed between on-station and on-farm trials, detailed discussions with farmers indicated specific differences between their selection criteria and those of the NDUAT/on-station program. Not uncommonly, farmers grow several varieties to suit different agro-ecological conditions. By contrast, the University had been concentrating on selections that performed well when line-sown in pure stands, under a narrow and favorable range of soil moisture conditions, and for short or medium-short growing periods.

Analysis of farmers' materials, methods and techniques: A baseline survey has been completed for each farmer, assembling details of the varieties used by area (whether local or improved), method and time of planting, whether grown under rainfed, irrigated, upland or lowland conditions, and other soil characteristics. Further, data have been collected on practices of fertilizer/ manuring, pest and disease control, weeding, cropping sequences and rotations, inter-cropping, harvesting, grain types, and yields.

Matching, parallel processing: Participating farmers are asked to supply samples of the traditional seed varieties they grow, so that they can be grown together with improved germplasm under homogeneous conditions at the research station. The station had already generated a large number of advanced lines, with a particular focus on testing for resistance to stress situations and for an adequate range of maturing periods, grain types, height and other traits to fit into various ecological niches. The assemblage of the traditional varieties, together with the baseline survey data and information collected through frequent unstructured conversations with farmers, has enabled the breeders to study the key agronomic characteristics of these local varieties in depth. This exercise has enabled us to select from amongst the advanced on-station lines those genotypes that match very closely the characteristics of the traditional varieties. We feel such a strategy offers the best chances for out-performing local varieties, for fitting new varieties into cropping systems and also for satisfying the local consumers' demands.

The rationale underlying this approach to selection is that, in rainfed conditions, farmers' goals, constraints and agro-ecological conditions are very heterogeneous. It would be a very expensive process for breeders to become as fully acquainted with this heterogeneity as farmers are, and impossible to replicate all those conditions at research centers. On-farm trials managed by farmers are therefore crucial to the screening process. The approach, by recognizing the diverse varietal need within villages, and even differences within a single farm, reverses breeders' conventional aspirations to supply a single variety to as wide a 'recommendation domain' as possible. The underlying rationale and empirical evidence presented here argue strongly for a wider implementation of this participatory approach in rainfed areas. In comparison to other participatory methods available, this approach also represents a cost-effective use of scientists' time: their role is that of building-up a portfolio of varietal material broadly compatible with what farmers are known to prefer under rainfed conditions, matching it up with the characteristics of farmers' varieties, and then allowing farmers to make the selections under their own management conditions.

Sharing multiple options: Unlike other programs aiming, evolving and using a single finished product, offering a basket of half-baked technologies is the strength of our program. In offering a single 'best' technology, there is absolutely no option for a farmer to choose as per his/her needs and requirements. If the technology works, it is well and good. However, if it does not, it is rejected by farmers and then scientists have to go back to the experiment station and develop a fresh technology. There is evidence that a single technology has little chance of success under rainfed, complex, diverse, difficult and risk prone village systems, especially in tropical monsoonal Asia. This 'single solution' approach slows down the whole process of improvement. In addition, a negative side of this conventional research is that if the technology is workable, its adoption will reduce the diverse, indigenous materials, methods and practices. Further, for a system to be sustainable, it must be resilient to stresses or other uncertainties. The traditional system has evolved with such characteristics so as to be resilient. The resilience rests on the diversity represented in the system, either in terms of genetic variability in a given area or the diversity over time and space of farming operations. In our participatory approach, half-baked technologies with multiple options are used with the intention of generating and re-identifying appropriate technologies. In the process, different options percolate to variable niches existing in the village system. By offering sufficient options, the participatory contribution of farmers in experimentation is fully integrated and several breeding lines of different backgrounds may be retained by farmers to meet their preference and needs. Thus, local varieties are not replaced altogether by single released and notified varieties. This approach provides new and genetically efficient materials and, at the same time, ensures adequate genetic diversity.

Testing design: In the conventional on-station research system, the statistical tools and techniques like randomization, replication and local control are used to arrive at valid conclusions. However, when working with small resource-poor farmers in on-farm experimentation, it is difficult to test very many treatments with prescribed replications. To overcome this hurdle, we take different farmers in a village as a replication and different villages as multi-locations. Each farmer is given at most two to three new breeding lines along with one standard check and a farmer's own variety, used under normal farming conditions. The same treatments are replicated with at least three farmers in a village, making a cluster. Efforts are made to constitute such a farmers' cluster, with areas contiguous so as to assume an analogy of a single experimental field. Different clusters of farmers receive different sets of breeding lines. Depending on the size of village, one to one and half dozen breeding lines are tested in each participatory village.

Self revolving technology through the establishment of village seedbank/ on-farm conservation

Many tools, techniques and improved genetic materials reach small, poor farmers very late. Even if it reaches them, the farmers may not be able to purchase the costly seeds of new varieties. The Faizabad concept is laid out to solve this problem as follows. Genetic materials, seeds, plants, nurseries, calves, kids etc., are used as a treatments under experimentation and, sometimes, some of them prove to be judged better by farmers, according to their own household criteria. At the very outset of an experiment, farmers are persuaded and terms are defined to anticipate such a 'successful' case. To participate, farmers have to agree to voluntarily refund and contribute back a small portion of their produce to researchers' to build-up a 'People's Seed Bank' so that it can be shared by fellow farmers and households who may have important constraints. Thus, this system also has a in-built mechanism for very fast multiplication of improved materials.

This new theme enables even small, resource-poor farmers to get small quantities of seed well in advance as a test entry. Promising breeding lines, which match their local varieties, are tested on small, poor farmers' fields. After harvest, the farmer is requested to return back just double the seed quantity received, so that the next season other fellow farmers may have opportunity to test them, either in the same or other villages. This procedure is repeated with new farmers and the cycle continues. Thus, the seeds of potential breeding lines are revolved among the poorest farmers and the program is trying to assume a self-expanding, self-replicating, and sustainable form. In this way, a small quantity of seeds of promising breeding lines are gradually tested with a large number of farmers in the target group, without much dependence or burden on the experimental station (which has its own financial, human power, land, labor and other infrastructural limitations). Minimal investment and more relevant data are generated under this new research procedure. Most farmers are enthusiastically co-operating and participating in this mission.

A small quantity of seeds of the most promising lines can be spared easily from the research station and fed to this on-farm revolving (expanding and replicating) research system. Thus, this is not just a kind of program but also a model. A substantial amount of research as well as extension services might be rendered through this model program, involving the full participation of small resource-poor farmers who are mostly ignored, neglected and bypassed in the other models being used (Maurya, Bottral and Farrington, 1988).

Seed management

Promoting few varieties: purely an administrative convenience, not a technical propriety

There are important problems which have been noted in the conventional approaches. There needs to be a critical review of the following: plant breeding research, germplasm assembly, choice of parents, matching designs, selection designs, choice of sites for raising segregating populations, testing designs, data generation and compilation, varietal release and notification procedures, seed production, seed certification, quality control, and seed distribution and marketing. The possibilities of introducing a more decentralized, participative approach across the board should be explored. However, such a change of approach could be within the framework of the Government of India's Seeds Act of 1966. At present, seed multiplication is not officially permitted unless the variety concerned has been notified by the central government on the advice of a technical committee. How to decentralize that process in the interest of rapid local dissemination, while at the same time ensuring that quality is maintained during the process of seed multiplication, is a complex and important question that deserves careful review. Certainly, the loss of 'line' characteristics resulting from the absence of seed multiplication support is a potential constraint to the effectiveness of locally-targeted selection procedures; this problem will have to be addressed properly if the needs and aspirations of rainfed, diverse, complex, difficult and risk prone ecosystem farmers are to be met.

Promoting release and notification of a larger number of varieties

The expanding human population demanding,, which demands greater food, fibre, fodder and sugar supplies, will be compelled to evolve efficient and high-yielding genotypes. The operational difficulty in handling seed production, certification, storage and distribution of seeds now restricts the number of varieties which can be handled. However, rather than relying on one or a few selected varieties, a mosaic of varieties needs to be put into channel so that at least some diversity may continue and no absolute danger may occur in the event of stress: for example, an outbreak of pests or diseases, or the occurrence of flood, drought, etc.

Concurrent program of release and germplasm enrichment

In the conventional breeding methodology, a large number of breeding lines are first generated and then, depending on the breeding objectives, a few lines are picked out which may attain commercial status. Thus, an in-built lacuna exists in the current conventional breeding method: huge numbers of breeding lines are not used---which consumes enormous manpower, energy, time and space. Certain lines may not attain commercial status for select reasons, but they may be sources of valuable genes which could be further used in the breeding program. These need to be preserved and such materials should be passed on concurrently to the germplasm bank. Such a process may compensate for the huge loss regularly accruing in the breeding process.

Decentralization of seed corporations

The National Seed Corporation (NSC) and the State Seed Corporations can handle only a limited number of varieties of national and state importance. However, a larger number of varieties can be handled if NSC and State Seed Corporations are decentralized to divisional, regional, district or even block levels corporations. These would focus on producing seeds of local importance and requirements. Such a decentralized system should encourage the production of varieties with location specificity, generate local employment, promote genetic diversity and ensure a regional balance of seed production and seed availability.

Encouraging reputed and potential private seed companies to produce seed of locally-adapted varieties

The other way to promote a greater number of varieties and crops is through private seed companies. Located in different areas, and fast expanding, such companies should be encouraged, through assistance and concessions, to take-up seed production and distribution of locally-adapted varieties. Quality control can be exercised by seed certification agencies.

Varietal release and notification procedures need to be simplified, with more say given to state units

In China, power has been decentralized to provincial and prefectural (district)-level seed companies. These seed companies have been empowered to release and notify specific varieties for their area. Seed issues are discussed at the national level only when there is inter-state movement of seed. Likewise, the state becomes involved in district-level varietal issues when inter-district seed movement occurs. In China, varieties are released and notified at the district level. Thus, the farmers in China are able to get seeds of appropriate and desired varieties with the help of local breeders and local seed companies.

Germplansm conservation

Genetic improvement not spontaneous and autonomous

Genetic improvement is not carried out an isolated or spontaneous fashion; nor is it an autonomous activity. Rather, genetic improvement is performed through modification or alteration of already existing varieties. The process may include addition, elimination, reshuffling and synthesis of the traits dispersed in different cultivated and wild races/relatives through hybridization, mutation, or biotechnological techniques. Thus, plant breeding is an inter-dependent and overlapping evolutionary activity with characteristics of continuity.

Why such a huge range of genetic variability in crop species

During the prehistoric era, there was no organized research system and there was no application of mathematical and statistical tools to identify the best/potential yielders with good quality and adaptability within space and time. Prehistoric farmers chose their varieties through hit and miss, trial and error methods and keen observation of natural populations. They made selections out of curiosity or in quest for higher yield and other attributes from mixed and diverse populations which emerged from natural mutation followed by hybridization, segregation, recombinations and accumulation of new recombinants variants. These farmers developed an astonishing range of crop variability. This diversity has proved necessary for the survival of the species during sudden drastic changes.

The raising of the crops in highly diverse, complex, risk prone regions, over seasons, in different ecological situations, management systems, and variable climatic, edaphic and socio-economic conditions has also favored varietal wealth. Ever since species have evolved, there has been accumulated variation in crop populations, partly through natural selection and partly through artificial forces of human interventions (meeting the needs and preferences of cultivators, millers, traders and consumers). These forces have been responsible for the diversification of the genus/species into various agro-eco-botanical groups, sub-groups, varieties, sub-varieties and land races.

Disservice done by plant breeding

We have seen the positive contribution of plant breeding. However, this is but one face; the other face of the plant breeding is negative and has rendered great disservice. The rapid and large scale adoption of one or a few high yielding cultivar(s) has resulted into the rapid and fast replacement of locally-adapted varieties. Coupled with other factors like land degradation, deforestation, and land cleaning, these forces have caused serious genetic erosion, bringing-out genetic uniformity/ homogeneity in large contiguous areas and thereby enhancing genetic vulnerability to biotic and abiotic stresses.

Narrow genetic base: fallacy of current plant breeding approach

Not only man has already lost part of the genetic resource base, but he is subjecting the production system to high risk by electing to use a narrow genetic base for many of the important crops (few varieties or multiple varieties with similar genetic backgrounds).

Basic raw materials for breeding

Landraces, traditionally grown primitive cultivars, and wild relatives of cultivated plants are the basic raw materials for present day crop improvement programs. They are also required to meet the aspirations of future generations who may need altogether new sources of genes for facing unforeseen challenges: pathogens, insects, other pests and abiotic stresses like salinity, drought, flood and unfavorable temperatures, and even the need to adapt to new machines and tools. These raw materials (genetic resources), which by themselves may be inferior, may contain some desirable and rare gene sources that can be transferred to widely adaptable and acceptable varieties.

Future human need unpredictable

Future human needs for breeding and crop diversification can not be predicted in advance. In the face of changing climate and global warming, new agricultural production systems are fast evolving and there may be novel future requirements for food, feedstuffs, industrial applications, unique ways of preservation, packaging, transport, storage etc.

Biodiversity: the real base for improvement

Thus, biodiversity has now become fundamental as an input for technology development as well as for sustainable growth. The preservation and conservation of a large base of genetic resources has key implications for future development and genetic enhancement.

What is biodiversity?

Biodiversity includes the rich diversity of forms, right from the molecular unit (and the chemical and physical ones) to the individual organisms, and then on to the population, community, ecosystem, landscape and biospheric levels. It refers to the variety and variability among living organisms and the ecosystem complexes in which they occur. It is estimated that there exist 5-10 million species of living forms on our earth. Some estimates place the number at about 30 million. But only less than 2 million of these forms have been identified and described. These include 300,000 species of green plants and fungi, 800,000 species of insects, 23,000 species of fishes, 3,000 amphibians, 6,300 reptiles, 8,700 birds 4,100 mammals and a few thousand species of micro-organisms.

Village ecosystem

The biodiversity in nature acts as an insurance during periods of emergency by reducing societal vulnerability. The combination of trees, grasses, crops, animals and ponds which we found in almost every village serves as an extraordinary, interactive and resilient system. Instead of destroying this complex and interrelated system, science should strive to build on it.

Biological diversity must be preserved in every village ecosystem

It is not enough to preserve biological diversity in just those areas where the flora and fauna are genetically-rich by setting-up biosphere reserves and national parks. The biological diversity must be preserved and/or created in every village ecosystem. The productivity of our basic natural resources, like plant and animal genetic resources and land and water, will have to be increased substantially. But sustainable increase will be possible only under a system of participatory management and control.

One of the most conspicuous characteristics of traditional agricultural technology is the diversity of crops it employs. It is typical for a subsistence household to employ a number of cropping systems and a variety of crops within each of these cropping systems, including the interplanting of different crops in the same field. This crop diversity strongly shapes the way traditional farmers perceive the natural resources available to them for agricultural production.

Natural variability v. created variability

The end product of plant breeding, 'the improved variety', through a regular process of testing, identification, release certification, and wide-scale adoption, definitely displaces the existing natural varietal diversity. However, in the whole process, a large amount of variability is generated by all methods: hybridization, mutation and biotechnology. In several crops, a large number of breeding lines available at testing could be preserved-- which may compensate for the natural variability being lost. However, the basic difference between natural variability and created variability is that farmers are acquainted with the major traits of their traditional/local varieties, based on their past experience, but scientists are not aware of all the virtues of breeding lines generated. The details are known only for released and notified varieties after careful study.

Gene/germplasm bank not a substitute for natural on-farm variability

As we realize the importance of genetic variability within a crop (species and genera), its use for practical plant breeding, its fast erosion and in some cases near extinction, various conservation techniques have been devised and are being practiced. Some are in situ and some involve simple seedbanks/genebanks, which store material in special medium and long term cold storage modules. Each method has its own merits and demerits.

Apart from other demerits in in situ and seed/gene banks, variability is frozen out and the germplasm becomes static. In contrast, in natural ecosystems or farming situations, there is a free flow of genes through natural out-crossing, followed by recombination and natural selection among individuals within a varietal population and also between various varietal populations. As a result, new variations are continuously generated and varietal populations remain in dynamic and evolving states, thereby remaining capable of coping with changing environmental conditions.

Keeping these aspects in view, we suggest that natural genetic variability under real farming situations or ecosystems has its own dynamism and evolutionary significance. The Faizabad method of participatory plant breeding has an in-built system for genetic enhancement and promotes and preserves genetic variability through matching, parallel processing and offering multiple options of improved breeding lines.

References

Gupta, A.K., D.M. Maurya and K.C. John. 1988. Strengthening of on-farm research in high risk envrionment in eastern India. Paper presented at Farming Systems Research and Extension Symposium held at the Center for Continuing Education, Fayetteville, Arkansas, Oct 9-12, 1988.

Maurya, D.M. 1984. Institutional growth of agriculture in India. Paper presented for seminar on Agricultural Research Planning and Management. School of Development Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, Jun 5, 1984.

Maurya, D.M., and A. Bottrall. 1987. Innovative approach of farmers for raising their farm productivity. Paper presented at IDS workshop. Farmers and Agricultural Research Complementary Methods. Institute of Development Studies at University of Sussex, July 26-29, 1987.

Maurya, D.M., A. Bottrall and J. Farrington. 1988. Improved livelihoods. Genetic diversity and farmers' participation: a strategy for rice breeding in rainfed areas of India. Experimental Agriculture, 24, 311-320.

Maurya, D.M. and R. Kishore. 1988. Institution building for farming system research and extension. Paper presented in the East India Farming System Research Network Seminar held at Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneshwar, India, Sep 30 to Oct 2, 1988.

Maurya, D.M., K.C. John, R.A. Singh, K.R. Tewari, and A.K. Gupta. 1988. A case study of sustainable and self-revolving program of on-farm research. Paper presented at Farming Systems Research and Extension Symposium held at the Center for Continuing Education, Fayetteville, Arkansas, Oct 9-12, 1988.

Maurya, D.M., K.C. John, R.A. Singh, K.R. Tewari. 1988. Impact assessment of on-farm research employing unobtrusive and methodologies to discern horizontal diffusion. Paper presented at Farming Systems Research and Extension Symposium held at the Center for Continuing Education, Fayetteville, Arkansas, Oct 9-12, 1988.

Maurya, D.M. 1989. The innovation approach of Indian Farmer First. In: R. Chambers, A. Pacey and L.A. Thrupp, ed. Farmer innovation and agricultural research. pp. 9-14. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Maurya, D.M., K.C. John, A.K. Gupta, K.R. Tewari and R.A. Singh. 1990. On-farm research - concept, methodology and accomplishment. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Farmers Experimentation, On-Farm Research, Risk Adjustment and Traditional Wisdom. Indian Society of Agronomy, New Delhi, Feb 6-10, 1009.

Footnotes:

1 I am grateful to the Ford Foundation in India for providing funds for farming systems research at the Narenda Dev University of Agriculture and Technology, Faizabad. I am also grateful to the Chairman of the Uttar Pradesh Council of Agricultural Research, Sri B.N. Tiwari, for his kind co-operation and encouragement in contributing to this paper. (BACK)

2 This paper is based on the experiences the author acquired and accumulated over 32 years as plant breeder, rice breeder, Head of Plant Breeding, Director Extension, Director of Research, Dean of Agriculture, and Project Leader of Farming System Research in the Department of Agriculture, Uttar Pradesh and in the two agricultural universities of Uttar Pradesh: the C.S.A. University, Kanpur and Narendra Dev University, Faizabad. (BACK)

Document(s) 28 de 38

guest (Lire)heure de l'Est (É.-U. et Canada) Login