Adoption and Spatial Diversity of Later Generation Modern Rice Varieties in the Philippines

C. C. Launio,* G. O. Redondo, J. C. Beltran, and Y. Morooka

Not much information has been publicly available on the diff usion of modern varieties (MVs) from the 1990s and on current diversity of rice (Oryza sativa L.) varieties in farmer fields. Using national household surveys of Philippine growers conducted in 1993, 1997, and 2002, this study describes the adoption of specific MVs and variety groups in farmer fields; measures the adoption rates of newly released varieties; and analyzes the spatial diversity of varieties planted in farmer fields. Data showed that IR64, IR74, IR42, and Burdagol are enduring varieties from 1970s and 1980s, and PSB Rc18, PSB Rc10, PSB Rc28, Masipag, PSB Rc14, and PSB Rc82 are the most commonly planted new varieties. The MV3 varieties (released mid-1980s to mid-1990s) were popularly planted with an observed decrease in the use of MV2s (released mid-1970s to mid-1980s) and increase in the use of MV4s (released after 1995). Around 30 to 40% of the total rice area is planted to new rice varieties and the aggregate replacement period of rice varieties is around 8 to 11 yr, with faster adoption rates during dry season (DS) in irrigated areas. On average, only 10 varieties occupy around 70% of the rice area in major rice-producing provinces in one season. Indices of spatial diversity show wide variability across provinces in terms of the richness of diversity, dominance of specific varieties, and the equality of abundance, but no clear trend across periods. Policymakers are thus encouraged to continually support and strengthen the current efforts of public rice breeding research and extension, even as research beyond analysis of on-farm morphological diversity is recommended.


he improvement in crop productivity, particularly for rice and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), based on a new plant type, characterized as shorter, earlier maturing, with less photoperiod sensitivity, than traditional tropical and subtropical varieties became popularized as the foundation for the Green Revolution in developing countries (Evenson, 2002). Several studies have documented the rapid adoption of rice high-yielding varieties over the period from 1968 to the 1980s (Herdt and Capule, 1983; Dalrymple, 1986; Barker et al., 1985; David et al., 1994; Francisco, 1997). Not much data, however, have been publicly available on more recent time periods, especially about the diff usion adoption of new rice varieties from the 1990s. This is important especially since two major acts that impacted agriculture in the Philippines were enacted after 1990, namely: the Local Government Code in 1992 and Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act in 1998, both of which may have influenced variety adoption and spatial diversification. Recent study by Estudillo and Otsuka (2006) assessed the changing contributions of successive generations of MVs of rice to yield increase and stability and changes in total
C.C. Launio and Y. Morooka, Graduate School of Kuroshio Science, Kochi Univ., Monobe Otsu 200 Nankoku city, Kochi, 783-0093 Japan; G.O. Redondo and J.C. Beltran, Philippine Rice Res. Inst., Maligaya, Science City of Muñoz, 3119 Nueva Ecija, the Philippines. Received 4 Sept. 2007. *Corresponding author ( Published in Agron. J. 100:1380–1389 (2008). doi:10.2134/agronj2007.0297 Copyright © 2008 by the American Society of Agronomy, 677 South Segoe Road, Madison, WI 53711. All rights reserved. No part of this periodical may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.


factor productivity (TFP) in the Philippines, but this study used adoption data only from Central Luzon, Philippines, and secondary data in which the use of specific MVs cannot be distinguished. A more detailed understanding of the development and adoption trends of MVs in farmer fields is important because it relates to the impact of public plant breeding research. As Evenson and Gollin (2003) observed, varietal releases are not necessarily a good measure of the success of research; a better measure is the use of these varieties in farmers’ fields. With more than 80% of the country’s rice area planted to modern rice varieties since the early 1980s, it is useful to have an updated measure of the adoption rate of varieties developed in the 1990s, and to what extent farmers use these varieties compared with the early modern varieties. Measuring the adoption rate of new varieties indicates the impact of the breeding program that continues to develop and release new varieties. Brennan and Byerlee (1991) indicated that “for a given rate of variety release, a rapid rate of variety replacement in farmers’ fields leads to higher returns to public plant breeding research because the lag between variety release and adoption by farmers is reduced.” Furthermore, understanding the adoption of rice varieties provides an indication of the sustainability of the rice production growth in the future. Aside from the objective of increasing productivity, plant breeders justify the continuous breeding and release of varieties as a means to promote genetic diversification. Genetic diversity is known to substantially reduce a crop’s vulnerability to diseases. Understanding the variety disAbbreviations: DS, dry season; FS, foundation seeds; IRR, irrigated; IRRI, International Rice Research Institute; MVs, modern varieties; NSIC, National Seed Industry Council; PhilRice, Philippine Rice Research Institute; RBFHS, rice-based farm household survey; RF, rainfed; TFP, total factor productivity; TV, traditional varieties; WS, wet season.


A g r o n o my J o u r n a l

Vo l u m e 10 0 , I s s u e 5


Bureau of Plant Socioeconomics Division (SED) of PhilRice. extension workers and from the results of the study. On the other hand. and either as a commercial variety for all regions of the country or very recently. 138 varieties have been total of the rice areas in these major rice-producing provinces released. barangay hall. around 70% of the country’s total rice area (Fig. A data collector starts from a designated landmark acteristics such as resistance to pests and diseases and improved (for e. in farmer fields. 19 for rainfed. comprise around 50% of the country’s total rice area harvested. 92 for irrigated. the province served as domain of the study lowland. and then followed by the PSB Rc72H (Mestizo) in 1997.. Issue 5 • 2008 1381 . (ii) measure adoption rates of newly released variindicate to some extent the genetic diversity of the rice crop eties. its network for the production of the foundation seeds (FS) 1996–1997 and 2001–2002 crop years. University of the Philippines at Los Baños edge. breeders bred specifically for some qualified respondent every three houses from the landmark. 1). Upon approval of release. a multi-disciplinary. The specific objectives of the study were to: (i) describe the recent diffusion adoption of specific rice varieties Fig. and recently. and 8 for saline-prone rice areas (Padolina. despite the drawbacks for specific regions or sites. 1. and targeted variety promotion programs. MATERIALS AND METHODS particularly in location-specific variety development. These variety-use represented by the most number of rice-producing institutions develop and submit promising lines to the Rice provinces in the Philippines. which produces the registered The RBFHS in 1992–1993 covered 15 major rice-producing seeds and sell to other seed growers who then produce the certiprovinces with 1100 respondents sampled purposively. church. and the second stage were bred with the objective of creating a plant type that would unit is the rice farm household. Thus. Yearly release of rice varieties in the Philippines (1968–2006). In the 1997 Most rice varieties were originally released for irrigated and 2002 surveys. breedon the RBFHS data set as will be mentioned later. This study was conducted to analyze the adoption of these officially released rice varieties in farmers’ fields using national rice farm household surveys conducted in 1993. 1997. The FS are distributed to the seed to some reports of the earliest 1988 survey in several regions. 1985). most of the hybrid rice varieties were commercially released after 2002. About 70% were developed for the covered 30 and 33 provinces with 2239 and 2474 respondents. 2007). and 2002. Statistics (BAS) conducts a regular quarterly survey on rice multi-agency body that tests. with a quick reference of these released varieties. until after and all barangays (villages) in the province served as sampling 1990 when IRRI and PhilRice began breeding rice varieties population. which was after the national program for hybrid rice commercialization was launched in 2001. This method is used in ensurenergy and fertilizer to achieve high yields (Barker et al. Data Set The major players in rice breeding research in the Philippines The study used data from the rice-based farm houseare the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). Much later. and compare the adoption rate by Agronomy Journal • Volume 100. or school) and interviews a grain quality. seed production. selected and direct-seeded rainfed-lowland. information on rice variin farmers’ fields using both actual spatial data tabulation and ety diff usion by province. breeders incorporated in their variety development charbarangay. rainfed-lowland. evaluates. this study ing or host institutions submit breeder seeds to PhilRice and used the RBFHS cross-section data sets covering 1992–1993. The fied seeds released to farmers. and upland ecosystems. adverse environments such as the cool-elevated area and the The data collector always moves in the right direction until he saline-prone environments. selected using the right coverbe resistant to lodging and would make efficient use of solar age method (PhilRice. This study used a two-stage sampling selection. (iii) analyze the spatial diversification of varieties planted being planted in the country. The first varieties for cool-elevation and saline-prone areas were released by 1995. the 1996–1997 and 2001–2002 surveys 1995. respectively. local policymakers in their research and development activities. saline-prone. The Bureau of Agricultural Varietal Improvement Group (RVIG). and recommends to the production for all provinces but they are only able to classify National Seed Industry Council (NSIC) varieties for release area harvested to MVs and traditional varieties (TVs). some private seed companies. this is the most useful source of information on specific (UPLB).persal in the major rice-producing regions of the country would variety groups. and ecosystem can provide spatial diversity indices. and (iv) draw policy recommendations basis for decision making of researchers. hybrid rice varieties. 1997). The NSIC released an average of inces covered in the 1996–1997 and 2001–2002 surveys are around four varieties every year since 1968 (Fig.. To our knowlIndustry (BPI). hold survey (RBFHS) being conducted every 5 yr by the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice). The early varieties released by using systematic random sampling. Finally. ing random sampling even without the list of farmers in the Later. PhilRice. 6 for cool-elevated. season. The sum of the rice areas represented by the provgenerally for transplanted rice. of those. 2). production network (SeedNet). 1998. Although breeding for hybrid rice started much earlier and the first hybrid rice was released in 1994. and transplanted The first stage is the barangay (equivalent of a village). irrigated lowland rice ecosystem (including hybrid rice varieties). specifically for cool elevated. Since 1968.g. 13 for upland.

Commercially released rice varieties† in the Philippines. especially given the changes in naming schemes of rice varieties. and in the case of 1996–1997 and 2001–2002 surveys. the accuracy of information is dependent on how well the farmers were able to identify varieties correctly or recall the varieties they planted. 1968–2005. Several variety names mentioned by farmers are also not in the list of officially released varieties because either they are local names given by farmers or these are only selection lines named by farmers. hybrid varieties as a separate category. since 1968. The MV1 varieties were potentially higher yieldthe derivation of indices. and distinguishing as fourth-generation varieties request from the author or the journal) shows the distribu(MV4) the varieties released after 1995 most of which were tion of the number of barangays per province covered in the three RBFHS. Traditional ¶ MV2. the data were gathered in major irrigated and rainfed lowland rice-growing areas thus the variety monitoring may not have captured condition in the upland areas and in other provinces with very small rice areas. C4 series from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s. varieties released after 1995. and share to total area planted by variety were used to describe the recent diffusion adoption of specific rice varieties. Percentage distribution of respondents by specific variety planted. particularly between the 1993 survey and the 1996 and Following Estudillo and Otsuka (2006). the first-generation 2002 surveys. The MV3 varieties ‡ As defined by Estudillo and Otsuka (2006) with an additional category included (MV4 defined as incorporated better grain quality and stronger host those released after 1995).RainfedCool.One disadvantage of these data is that it was based on farmer interviews and thus. mid-1980s to the late 1990s. plant resistance. The thirdTotal 84 19 13 8 6 8 138 generation MVs (MV3) consisted of IR64 to IR72 † Varieties approved for release by the National Seed Industry Council (NSIC). in stature and have stiff straw that enable them to Total no. For policy purposes. IR series from IR5 to IR34. In Fig. The MV2 varieties were MV2¶ 18 3 6 0 0 0 27 designed to ensure yield stability by incorporating MV3# 20 8 1 1 2 2 34 MV4†† 30 7 5 7 4 6 59 multiple pest and disease resistance. Despite the asymmetric sourcing of data. we also tried to group divide these varieties into four distinct groups based on the dates of release and their distinct characteristics following Estudillo and Otsuka reaches the sample quota. All the conclusions in this report are then true generally for the irrigated and rainfed-lowland ecosystems in major rice-growing provinces in the country. PSB Rc varieties released from mid-1980s to mid-1990s. varieties and varieties bred by the nongovernment # MV3. IR64 to IR72.varieties tion.Saline. of bear more grains with greater fertilizer applicaVariety Irrigated. Survey municipalities in the Rice-based Farm addition. the difference in area is not significant ing than traditional varieties (TVs) under ideal conditions so any anticipated variation in results may not be very sigbut not necessarily so on farmers’ fields due to its susceptinificant to affect the trends. Also. It is possible that farmers confuse variety names. Data Analyses The study approached adoption and diversification analysis descriptively since it is simple to execute while giving a clear picture particularly on specific varieties. Appendix Table 1 (available by (2006). 1382 Agronomy Journal • Volume 100. The MV1 varieties are more fertilizer responsive than TVs because they are short Table 1. unclear farmers’ responses were verified with the list of official varieties and the source of seeds they mentioned. previously the and PSBRc2 to PSBRc74 were released from the Philippine Seed Board. or IR64 and PSB Rc64. the data sets were used as is treating them MVs (MV1) consisting of IR series from IR5 to IR34 develas cross-section data in the discussion of variety adoption. IR36 to IR62 released from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s. bility to pests and diseases. developed for adverse production environments (Table 1). organization Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa pag†† MV4. Second-generation MVs (MV2) consisting group‡ lowland lowland Upland Hybrid elevated prone released of IR36 to IR62 were released from the midMV1§ 16 1 1 0 0 0 18 1970s to the mid-1980s. name of varieties not in the list were recorded as is. 2. for example an earlier variety BPI Ri10 can be confused with a newer variety named PSB Rc10. we classified § MV1. For this study. Issue 5 • 2008 . because there are more than 100 varieties released Household Survey (2001–2002). oped by IRRI and C4 series developed by the University The total area planted of respondents was always used in of the Philippines were released from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s.

both actual spatial data tabulations and spatial diversity indices were derived. were widely used along with IR64. a promising line coming from preliminary yield trials is subjected to national cooperative testing and multi-adaptation trials. more than 50% of the total rice area was planted to MVs by 1970. around 90% of the irrigated areas were planted to MVs and 80% in the rainfed areas. Enduring varieties released in the 1970s and 1980s are IR64. The oldest and newest varieties planted were also identified in the three survey periods to provide an additional indicator of how fast newly released varieties are observed in farmers’ fields. is computed as follows: qit = pit if year of release ≥t – m. and IR42 and Burdagol later released as PSB Rc34. (2003). PSB Rc14. 1991).† Index Margalef Concept Richness Mathematical construction D = (S – 1)/ln N (D =>0) D = 1/(Nmax/N) (D =>1) Explanation Number of species (S) recorded. (2004) and Smale et al. After their introduction in the mid-1960s. Spatial diversity was also analyzed using diversity indices used by ecologists following Benin et al. When a farmer chooses to adopt a new variety in place of an older variety. i. This index. In the 1997 and 2002 surveys. N is the total hectares of rice planted by the respondents in that season Inverse of maximum area share occupied by any single rice variety Berger-Parker Relative abundance or Inverse dominance Both richness and relative abundance Shannon D = –∑pilnpi (D =>0) The pi is the proportion. m is the number of years used to define “recent. released in 1995 were also widely used in both seasons and ecosystems largely for its high yield potential and good grain quality. is computed for a given year. released in 1992. Indices such as the proportion of recent varieties and weighted average age of varieties were calculated to determine the adoption rate of the newly released varieties following Brennan (1984). IR74. This adoption rate steadily grew. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Modern Rice Varieties Planted in Farmers’ Fields It did not take long for farmers in the Philippines to adopt MVs. as follows: WAt = ∑p R it i it Agronomy Journal • Volume 100. The weighted average age of varieties (following Brennan and Byerlee. PSB Rc82 has the highest maximum 1383 ∑q i it where I is the proportion of the total area that is sown to varieties released in the previous m years. a promising line undergoes a series of field performance tests and evaluation trials before it can be released as a commercial variety. we also calculated simple indices to understand more the dynamics of rice variety adoption. unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG) were also under separate categories. in year.Table 2. an extremely early-maturing variety released in 1992. 1991). and defined recent variety as a variety that is available to farmers for five more years thus in this study we used m = 7. The estimated proportion of area planted to only one or few varieties in a province and the number of released varieties planted by farmers in a province at a given year and season were also described. released in 1994 and known for its resistance to pests and diseases particularly during the wet season (WS). Using the three cross-section survey data. Conceptually. measured in years from varietal release and weighted by the proportion of area sown to each variety at that time. Masipag varieties bred by a nongovernment organization largely through farmers’ selection strategy also ranked high. PSB Rc80 and PSB Rc82 were widely used among the varieties released in 2000. and the check variety usually used is the best available existing variety. (2003) but applying it in the case of rice. A percent distribution of respondents by variety groups was used to compare adoption by variety groups. especially of the newly released varieties. on the other hand. Th is measure avoids the use of an arbitrary defi nition of “new” or “recent” varieties (Brennan and Byerlee.” Then It = where R it is the age of the variety in terms of the number of years (at time t) since the release of variety i. corrected for the total number of individuals (N) summed over species The more dominant the most abundant species. qit. 2003). Therefore. To analyze the spatial diversity of varieties in farmers’ fields. it reflects the farmer’s judgment that the new variety offers some net benefit or advantage (Evenson and Gollin. (2003). PSB Rc10. In the Philippines. especially in the irrigated ecosystem (Fig. and by 1980. consists of the weighted average age of varieties grown by farmers in a given year. qit = 0 if year of release <t – m. we assumed a lag of 2 yr between the release of a variety and its availability to farmers. The 2002 data showed that only <5% of the total area harvested was not planted with MVs and in 2004. The proportion of recent varieties (Brennan. 1984) is the proportion of the total area that is planted to recently released varieties. WAt. Spatial diversity indices used to evaluate Philippine grower adoption of rice varieties. Table 3 shows the most common varieties planted in the years after 1990 based on number of farmers reporting. t. Issue 5 • 2008 . With this in mind. IR64 still ranked first or second until the 2002 survey. where pit is the proportion of the area sown to variety. Table 2 shows the concepts and mathematical formulae used in deriving the indices adapted from Smale et al. almost 100% of the total production in the irrigated areas came from MV production. and PSB Rc28. newly released varieties are expected to perform similar to if not better than the existing varieties in the given environment for which it is recommended. t. the lower the index value Adaptation in this paper S is the number of rice varieties grown in a season by the respondents. or relative abundance of a species The pi is the area share occupied by the ith variety † Source: Smale et al. In this particular study. This index. 3). and PSB Rc18. Mathematical construction and explanation defined by Magurran (1988).

0 0.8 4.0 0. Issue 5 • 2008 .8 1.1 34.0 2.8 3.2 1. For PSB Rc10.3 0.0 0. and during DS and WS is dependent on variety characteristics.5 6.0 3.0 3.0 0.3 10.0 2.0 3.8 0.7 1.4 0.7 1.0 0.2 0.0 of the respondents in the rainfed Biniding 0. The trend in variety use is PSB Rc80 2000 0.4 7.0 0.3 50.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.4 2.0 0.2 0.6 0. In general.3 6.4 have started planting MV4 varietPSB Rc28 1995 0.0 0.4 20.0 0. and availability.5 1. data show <10% of PSB Rc36 1995 0.8 0.8 10. Trend in area harvested to MV.3 0.3 3.4 0.4 25.1 a price premium similar to IR64.2 5.0 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.0 5. which is recommended for rainfedlowland system.0 10.9 2. has long grain.4 9.2 1.7 than 10% of farmers planting PSB Rc74 1998 0.5 3.0 0.5 0.0 2.3 1.2 0. the most Table 3. In † IRR.2 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 3.8 11. Philippines (1965–2002).3 0. is resistant was larger in the irrigated ecosystem.0 0.1 0.0 1. 2007).4 0.0 0.0 were that it was high yielding and has IR 68 1988 1.1 1. and PSB Rc14.0 0.1 2.0 0. by season and by ecosystem.0 0.1 14. 3.0 0.0 0. of farmers planting MV3 and MV4 test plot yield at 12 t/ha among released varieties.5 18.1 5.0 0.1 0.1 MV4.6 0.1 1.0 0.4 4.1 0.4 3.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0. availFig.0 0. data show decreasing The trend in the percentage distribution by variety planted trend in the use of MV2s and increasing use of MV4s.6 0.0 13.1 3. most of the seasons.3 3.0 0.0 0. the top reasons given for using a variety were highyielding.0 0.0 1.4 3.0 2.0 for its good grain quality.2 3.7 2.7 12.0 5.8 16.† common reasons given by farmers were that it was high yielding.0 0. ability.1 in the 1993 DS in which a majority Pino 0.3 planting MV2 varieties in 1997 PSB Rc10 1992 0.4 7.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 BPI Ri10 1983 9.2 0.2 0.8 4.0 0. more Adoption of Newly Released Varieties farmers planted the early-maturing variety PSB Rc10 in rainand Variety Replacement fed areas compared to irrigated areas during the DS probably Results of the surveys including early reports of monitorowing to the limited water availability.1 4.7 0.0 0.0 18.0 price.3 0.2 0. Between seasons.0 2. and was available Variety released IRR RF IRR RF IRR RF IRR RF IRR RF IRR RF in the area.1 0.0 groups.3 2.9 ies.6 0.0 0.6 1.2 10.2 1.7 2.0 12.1 planting MV3 varieties and some PSB Rc18 1994 0.0 0.7 4.7 24.0 0.0 0. IR64 remains popular IR5 1968 0.3 0. higher IR 36 1976 4.4 2.2 1. rainfed.1 0.2 5.8 1. resistance to pests.0 0. ing rice variety adoption conducted by PhilRice in 1988 in many farmers planted the late-maturing disease-resistant PSB four major rice-growing regions indicate the fast diff usion of 1384 Agronomy Journal • Volume 100.Rc18 in irrigated areas even during the 2001 WS.0 0.0 8.9 2.3 6.3 18. Overall.0 0.6 5.9 0.1 0.2 2.5 IR 72 1988 4.0 0.2 3. For example. IR 64 1985 23.1 1. RF.0 0. Table 4 shows that a signifiPSB Rc2 1991 2.0 0. and has high milling recovery farmers planted MV4 during the DS implying greater adoption (PhilRice.0 0.2 1. however.1 4.9 2.0 0.1 0.2 Farmers’ reasons for using PSB Rc82 IR 66 1987 8.1 9.9 16.3 0.3 2.2 4. does not appear to limit adoption.0 0.0 2. Percentage distribution of respondents by most commonly planted varieties.9 although most of the farmers are PSB Rc12 1992 0. irrigated.2 0.9 1.1 1. good grain quality.9 2.9 6.2 good grain quality similar to IR64.2 0.7 1.4 0.3 4. more to rice blast.0 0.7 farmers planting MV2 and more PSB Rc34‡ 1995 6.4 0.3 still planted because it was paid with IR 60 1983 6.0 0.3 13.5 2.7 7.8 1.0 0.0 0.6 9.8 6.7 2.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 0.7 2.0 0.9 5.3 1.9 8.9 In terms of adoption by variety IR 74 1988 7.0 0.0 0.3 6.0 3. the percentage ‡ Burdagol.2 0. IR 70 1988 1.8 2.1 1.7 0. The 1997 survey shows that many farmers adopted IR42 and IR36 in rainfed areas even if both varieties were released for irrigated lowland.9 0.0 0. of newer varieties during the DS.3 0.1 0.3 7.5 3.0 0.0 3.3 0.5 1.6 2.4 0. PSB Rc10.4 4.0 0.2 0. in irrigated and rainfed ecosystems.0 0.2 0.6 0.9 10.1 0.5 1.0 0.0 0. On the other hand.2 18.0 0.9 17.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 area still used MV2 varieties.1 0.0 3. IR64.4 similar for both ecosystems except Masipag 0.2 cant percentage of farmers are still PSB Rc4 1991 2. and early maturing.0 PSB Rc82 2000 0.0 0.0 10.5 2.1 0.8 4.4 6.0 0. By 2002.0 0.3 3.3 6.6 3.1 1.6 0.5 3.0 0.4 6.5 5. 1992 WS 1993 DS 1996 WS 1997 DS 2001 WS 2002 DS Year early maturing.3 3. was also widely adopted in irrigated areas.3 1.0 0. and several other varieties recommended for irrigated ecosystems were also widely planted in rainfed areas.7 0.5 0.1 2.2 0.6 5.0 18.1 6.8 0.3 PSB Rc14 1992 0.7 4.6 2.1 3.0 0.0 0. The recommended type of ecosystem for a certain variety.4 2.6 8.9 1. IR42 was IR 42 1977 4.2 1.

BPI76 1968 IR8. the same surveys showed that more farmers (varieties released in the previous 7 yr from the time of surin the irrigated areas use certified and good seeds compared vey) is on average around 30 to 40% of the total rice area in with rainfed farmers (Cataquiz et al.Varieties released after 1995.2 8.0 0.-68 Nov.-56.-60.-14 May 1992 rainfed 8 10.1 2. C4 series from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s.5 0. These results imply that rainfed rice farmers also that season. 57 and 32% were planted to and was estimated to be used in 9% of the total irrigated areas in new varieties.0 56. Philippines. 1997 2001 WS irrigated 47 23. The weighted average age of planted to new varieties.0 0.-54.4 9 PSBRc5.5 11 NSIC Rc122. PSB Rc21 and PSB Rc4.7 4.0 73.0 0. PSB Rc 94.0 7.0 0.4 5.3 2. lower than the 1997 widespread promotion of the use of certified seeds through scenario because PSB Rc18.7 66. However. bred by IRRI Unclassified 5.0 0.By using the weighted average age of eties.6 1.-60. 1991b. 19 of the 30 provinces that higher adoption of varieties occurred during the DS in surveyed had more than 50% of their area in the 1997 DS the irrigated ecosystem (Table 5).-54. 1991a.8 Masipag 0. 28% of the farmer-respondents in irrigated areas adopted certified seeds or better compared with only 17% in the rainfed areas. by season and farm type. Indices of adoption rate of new varieties.-12 May 1992 rainfed 37 20. dominated varieties as an index of adoption rate of new varieties. Jan. C4–63G. and foundation seeds. § Weighted average age of varieties is an index of the average age of released varieties grown by farmers.7 4.-100 Jan. even IR70 and IR72 in the 1988 WS survey.4 0. Hybrid 0.-60 Nov.8 8.8 60.0 6. the National Seed Industry Council.4 9 PSBRc5.4 13. In 2002.4 0. such as the Masipag varieties or other selections or lines. 1997 1997 DS irrigated 49 54. where there is new rice varieties occupied 24 to 36%. or farmer-selections or farmer-named varieties.9 11 PSB Rc90/-94 Jan.Table 4.1 3.1 9.0 10 NSIC Rc122. This indicates that in the 2002 cropping year. 2001 rainfed 49 28.7 8.-100 Dec. § MV3. 2006).7 2.6 7. Table 5.5 10 PSBRc3.IR36 to IR62 released from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s.3 6. a wider only in 1991 were reported by around 5% of farmers in the 1992 area is planted to newer varieties during the DS.2 10. BPI76 1968 IR36 1976 IR20 1969 IR20 1969 IR20 1969 IR20 1969 BPI Ri3 1973 IR29. traditional varieties.6 2.6 6.2 7.0 0.0 2. ies from co-farmers who are in irrigated areas.1 10 PSBRc2. IR32 1975 IR29.-12. officially released only in 1988. varieties released from 1990 to 1996 covered more than 50% of the rice farmers in the rainfed rice areas buy or exchange new varietarea planted except in the rainfed area during the WS.5 1.9 release (Quintana.9 4. IR64.7 71. BPI76 1968 IR8.7 8 PSBRc3. none of which is a new variety per definition.5 in the Western Visayas 2 yr after its MV4¶ 0. most of the 1 Beginning in 1990. Each variety also is assigned a local name corresponding to names of popular river or lake for irrigated and rainfed-lowland varieties.0 9 PSBRc90.1 0.8 0.-10.7 0. adopted by 12% of the respondents ‡ MV2.1 0.0 8.0 0.-4 Nov. 1991d).5 55.1 2. rice farmers adopting certified. In 2002.-5.0 and released in 1987.0 already widely used in the major MV2‡ 29. (Appendix Table 2.8 2.8 7. 2003. and Masipag varithe national rice program.2 1.4 68. in Western Visayas by the 1988 DS.6 1.0 27.7 1991c.IR64 to IR72..-5.3 0. PSB Rc10. IR64 was released Variety Group IRR RF IRR RF IRR RF IRR RF IRR RF IRR RF commercially in 1985 and was MV1† 3.IR series from IR5 to IR34. measured in years from varietal release and weighted by the proportion of area sown to each variety. by variety group.7 7. available by request from the author or the with the average age in the irrigated areas during DS at 8 to 9 journal). ley also already reported planting farmers still used varieties released before the 1997 period. adopt new rice varieties almost as much as the irrigated rice The proportion of the total area planted to new varieties farmers.2 0. WS and 1993 DS surveys. a variety released only in Table 5 also shows that in the few rainfed DS areas covered 2000.3 14 IR72 1988 1996 WS irrigated 53 51. an analysis of the 1997 data set showed 10% of the rainfed prefi x of PSB Rc plus a number for all rice varieties released.1 0.9 6. The same author Traditional 8.7 56.1 58. Rainfed farmers in the Cagayan val. Jan.0 0.0 0.0 8 PSBRc8. the NSIC adopted a variety nomenclature using a code 2 For the paper. we found the farmers’ field. Both varieties were while new varieties occupied a significant portion of the rice area.-10.5 3.1 70.-94.9 9 PSBRc6.¶ MV4.0 0.4 0. PSB Rc82. registered.2 It is possible that the country (Table 5). Proportion Most recent variety used No. of sown to Weighted Year released recent average age and varieties varieties‡ of varieties§ Season Ecosystem planted† (It/%) (WAt/yr) Variety Year released 1992 WS irrigated 39 32.3 rice-producing areas in Luzon and MV3§ 53.1 0.-94 Dec.-72H Nov. In the 1996–1997 crop year. IR32 1975 IR42 1977 † This is the total number of released varieties mentioned by farmers.2 31. Issue 5 • 2008 1385 . This does not include varieties which are not released by the Philippine seed board or now.3 2.0 0. 1997 rainfed 45 43. and mountains for upland varieties. PSB Rc varieties released from mid-1980s to mid-1990s.0 4.8 reported that IR66.3 12. 2001 rainfed 49 32.7 0.5 73.6 0. was already † MV1. C4–63G. and only 5 of the 33 provinces in 2002 varieties planted in the country ranged from around 8 to 11 yr.6 4. Agronomy Journal • Volume 100. On the province level. while 21% adopted in irrigated areas. was the third most popular variety in the 2002 DS survey in the 1997 and 2002 surveys. 2003.0 2.1 1.8 8.-98.0 12. released A comparison between seasons also showed that in general. 1997 rainfed 38 57. C4–63G.0 15. PSB Rc 90.1 0.6 9. some newer varieties to major rice 1992 WS 1993 DS 1996 WS 1997 DS 2001 WS 2002 DS growing areas.-60 Nov. 1991 1993 DS irrigated 34 37.-5. 2001 2002 DS irrigated 54 36. ‡ Proportion of recent varieties is an index showing the proportion of the area planted to varieties released in the previous 7 yr. Trend of rice variety planted by farmers (percent of responses).2 20.1 9.4 5.2 0.1 20. 2001 Oldest variety used Year Variety released IR8.9 18.

The information on the oldest and newest variety used indicates two things.2 1997 DS Variety PSB Rc10 IR 64 PSB Rc14 PSB Rc18 IR 60 IR 66 IR 42 IR 74 IR 36 Masipag CPA 17. 75% of the total area planted was estimated to be planted to only 10 different rice varieties. DS = dry season. In 1997. the number of varieties planted in the farmers’ rice area at any one period does not vary much. Table 6 shows that only four or five varieties occupy around 50% of the area planted to rice in the country at one time.0 in their field. which is located near IRRI. faster in the irrigated areas during the DS. but an examination of the respondents who have planted >5 ha showed that more than 80% planted only one variety at one time. some farmers planted varieties released more than 20 yr ago.0 69.1 54. when given more variety options. this seems to be narrow variety use. 2001 WS 2002 DS Agronomy Journal • Volume 100. 2003). most of the rice areas in 2002 were planted to varieties released before 1997.8 50. it was 10 yr and more.2 69.0 35.3 2002 DS planted only to PSB PSB Rc10 44.3 66. They do not increase the number of varieties planted at one time. Less dominance is evident during the DS which suggests that farmers are probably trying more varieties during the less risky DS. There are some provinces where the Margalef index-number of varieties per unit of area is less than one while there are provinces where the index is as much as six to seven. Table 7 shows the spatial diversity indices calculated based on the household surveys. These data indicate that even with a greater number of varieties from which farmers can choose from.4 IR 64 16.2 35.02 (the case of Davao Oriental. that is.3 despite the many rice varieties Masipag 57. where as many as 26 different rice varieties were planted in the 64 ha sampled. One possible factor for this practice is that during marketing.5 61. both released only in January 2001 were used by farmers by the June planting of 2001.4 47.8 1996 WS Variety PSB Rc10 IR 64 PSB Rc14 PSB Rc18 IR 42 IR 66 IR 74 IR 60 IR 36 PSB Rc4 CPA 18..1 PSB Rc10 57. the Philippine case seem to be more diverse. Percentage share of popular variety to total area planted. some farmers still planted varieties released in 1975 such as IR29 and IR32.4 country generally plant only IR 42 72. traders or millers prefer buying in bulk similar quality rough rice particularly the grain size and shape which slightly differ among rice cultivars.1 its area in the 2001 WS and IR 64 32.3 39.1 31.9 PSB Rc82 40.1 to 1. Rice farmers in the PSB Rc82 69. Accounts during field interviews also reveal that farmers are aware of new good performing varieties in the neighboring farmer fields by visual or word of mouth so that good performing new varieties are subsequently tried in the following season. The Berger-Parker Index overall mean is relatively low considering the total number of commercially released varieties.0 Masipag 47. Berger-Parker index ranged from as low as 1.Table 6. In terms of the index of whether or not certain cultivars dominate others. This result implies that PSB Rc28 52.5 Rc18.7 71.1 51. For example. where the IR64 quality is distinct and demanded by consumers so that almost 98% of the total area was planted to IR64) to as high as 8.† 1992 WS Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Variety IR 64 IR 66 IR 60 BPI Ri10 IR 42 IR 36 IR 74 Burdagol IR 72 PSB Rc2 CPA 30. In 2002.2 71. assuming that the 10 varieties descended from different parentage. Comparing 1996 WS to 2001 WS. yr. had 55% of PSB Rc18 17. Th is is possible because there are some recommended varieties which were submitted for seed increase but the official approval was delayed. Variety CPA Variety CPA on the other hand.1 IR 74 61. Spatial Diversification Using the cumulative percent area planted to top varieties as a parameter for spatial diversification. or four to five varieties. For example. The average farm size is 1.7 81.9 66. This confirms the above observation that although some farmers planted new varieties. and many farmers planted IR42 released in 1977.7 55. This range and the relatively large standard deviation especially in the 2002 DS indicate wide variability in the extent to which one variety dominates in a given area.1 49. PSB Rc90 and PSB Rc94.5 (the case of Laguna province. an early modern variety bred for insect and disease resistance released in 1969 (Barker et al. Tarlac.7 PSB Rc14 64. but no consistent trend in the province calculations.6 40. only PSB Rc10 was planted in approx1386 imately 50 to 60% of the rice area in both seasons. in the case of Bukidnon and Camarines Sur provinces in the 1997 survey. implying that selected preferred rice varieties indeed dominate the farmers’ fields. by season.5 78.8 1993 DS Variety IR 64 IR 66 IR 60 BPI Ri10 IR 42 IR 72 IR 74 Burdagol IR 36 PSB Rc4 CPA 26.5 58.9 43. Issue 5 • 2008 . the average age of varieties planted in majority of the provinces were <10 yr in both seasons. many varieties released in November 1997 were already used by some farmers mostly in Luzon and Mindanao in the 1996 WS and 1997 DS. the Berger-Index showed a decrease in the dominance index on average.9 76. 1985).5 47. replace their previous variety. Second. Some farmers’ selection varieties are also planted in farmer fields long before they are officially released such as the case of Angelica (farmers’ selection released as NSIC Rc122).2 PSB Rc28 52. This relatively consistent trend based on the three cross-section survey data implies that varieties in farmer fields in general are replaced every 8 to 11 yr.0 79.8 74.7 43. Variety diversification also differs at the provincial level.8 57.9 PSB Rc78 69. In the 1997 survey. WS = wet season. In fact in 2001 WS. only two to three varieties occupy 50% of the total area while in some cases.8 62. suggesting that there is in a way a bandwagon effect in farmers’ variety-use where certain preferred varieties planted by one farmer are also planted by other farmers. There is no marked change from the 1996–1997 to 2001–2002 crop periods. The ranges of the spatial indices show differences across provinces in terms of spatial diversity of rice varieties but not so much across periods. First.4 63. however.7 PSB Rc18 31. Given the numerous variety releases.2 one or two varieties per season PSB Rc36 74.8 commercially released.5 64.0 one time. few IR 74 62. while in the 2002 survey.2 ha. Compared with data for other countries (Food and Agriculture Office. These data also reinforce the fact that rice farmers.4 54. a few farmers in various provinces still planted IR20.2 rice varieties are planted at PSB Rc14 66.6 61.6 PSB Rc80 67.8 66.1 81. only one.7 58. some varieties are planted in farmer fields immediately after its release and sometimes even before it is officially released.1 † CPA = cumulative percentage of area. In most provinces.

01 3.11 2.25 3.47 4.47 3. and PSB Rc82.48 7.66 2.52 4.34 4.24 2.67 1. which they cannot see (Smale et al.31 4.99 2.19 2.52 0.43 3.40 2.85 1.24 5.52 2.06 1.31 3.32 1.43 1.72 3.25 3. that farmers choose varieties based on their observable traits or genetic expression rather than on genetic composition at a molecular level.98 2.53 2.51 2.00 3.13) and maximum of 2.50 1. Margalef Index Province name Agusan del Norte Agusan del Sur Albay Bohol Bukidnon Bulacan Cagayan Camarines Sur Davao del Norte Davao del Sur Davao Oriental Ilocos Norte Iloilo Isabela Laguna Leyte Maguindanao North Cotabato Northern Samar Nueva Ecija Mindoro Occidental Mindoro Oriental Pampanga Pangasinan Quezon South Cotabato Sultan Kudarat Tarlac Zamboanga Norte Zamboanga Sur Aurora Compostela Valley Zamboanga Sibugay Mean Std Deviation Minimum Maximum Berger-Parker Shannon Index 1996WS† 1997DS 2001WS 2002DS 1996WS 1997DS 2001WS 2002DS 1996WS 1997DS 2001WS 2002DS 3.65 2.00 5.84 2.46 2.84 2.10 2.05 0.08 3. PSB Rc14.96 – – – 2. and IR42 and Burdagol are still planted in farmer fields.18 6.04 2.10 3. 2005).88 1.30 3.78 3.Table 7.17 4.44 3.13 2.95 – 3.64 8.44 – – – 0.28 3. PSB Rc28.24 2.78 4.90 1.51 3.26 2.12 1.63 3.53 2.85 in 2001 WS.13 3.12 2.13 4.02 1. CONCLUSIONS The main contribution of this paper is to document and describe.37 1.52 1.96 1.46 1.95 2.17 2.39 1.73 4.28 2.46 4.10 2.57 4.13 2.02 8. 1992–2002.30 2.61 3.06 3.92 5. however.10 8.08 2.53 3.87 4.22 – – 1.80 4.54 3.99 2.48 5.19 0. It is important Agronomy Journal • Volume 100.39 2.53 2.39 2. minimum of close to zero (0.61 2.40 2.62 4.80 2.67 5.51 8.37 2.44 2.73 2.90 2.48 0.76 1.82 1.42 2.48 6.98 2.09 3.25 3.28 6.46 4.93 † WS = wet season. The calculated spatial diversity indices show no clear trend across periods except a relative increase in the coefficient of variation of the indices by season from 1997 to 2002.62 4.90 1.08 1.30 3.13 1.18 – – 1. We assume.13 – – 0.73 5. and some indications of relatively increasing richness and lower dominance especially during the DS where farmers are more adventurous in trying more varieties.61 4.56 4.90 2.13 0.75 1.75 4.74 1..90 2.46 2.63 3.13 2.07 2.98 4.56 2.70 1.97 6.59 4.59 4.78 2.25 3.14 2.80 2.86 2.37 5.61 1.28 4.23 2.11 1.13 5.88 8.04 2.05 2.42 2.17 6.66 1.08 1.59 2. DS = dry season.64 1.51 4.45 1.60 2.39 3.88 2. The wide difference in the diversity index across provinces is also reflected in the calculated Shannon index–for example.67 2.46 2.11 2. Masipag.88 3.97 4. there is also evidence of the fast adoption of selected newly released varieties such as PSB Rc18.04 – – 0.97 5.30 0.85 2.58 1.02 2.48 1.19 7.17 5.62 4.58 1.10 3.86 2.71 2.50 3.60 2.83 1.51 3.99 7.68 3.98 2.17 2.50 4.21 4.57 2.83 4.89 4.61 3.57 4.13 0.44 1.67 1.46 5.23 4.29 2.21 3.00 1.40 4.52 3.57 2.43 2.87 4.13 9.03 2. Rubenstein et al.70 5. 2003.50 3.85 2. In addition.83 2.16 3.15 2.83 3.21 3. relative abundance. The mean Shannon index did not significantly change from the 1996– 1997 to 2001–2002 period.98 2.58 3.25 0.47 4.45 3.28 3.19 4.15 4.60 3.60 4. The higher adoption rate in irrigated areas and during the DS also points to the importance of sufficient irrigation and less risk of pests and diseases in the early adoption of new varieties.71 – – 1.91 5. the recent adoption of rice varieties in farmer fields.59 2.44 2.71 5.07 5.73 1.35 2.42 3.87 3.42 2.45 3.26 3.45 2.22 2.84 6.07 4.09 1.13 2.82 3.37 4.44 5.69 3.66 1.07 6.58 8.56 2.06 1.03 2.69 7.27 2.12 5.41 2.25 2.48 2.71 4. A close to zero Shannon index means that the area share distribution of the varieties is not even.83 2. Data showed that although enduring varieties released in the 1970s and 1980s such as IR64.30 3.49 3.42 4.53 2.68 – – – 1.73 6. This information can be used to encourage policymakers to continually support and strengthen the current efforts of public rice breeding research and extension.45 1.44 3.19 3.65 2.95 1.76 1.80 2.34 4.07 1.25 1.77 2.93 2.25 1.36 2.68 3.94 3.34 2.36 2.39 1.80 1.52 3.93 3.50 9.21 5.50 0.82 3.85 2.87 2.38 5. using three sets of nationwide farmer surveys.01 2.53 3.85 2.21 4.45 2.10 2.61 1.16 3.51 4.77 1.84 2.45 3.65 1.27 2.65 2. especially the later generation varieties.90 4. Spatial diversity also varies across provinces in terms of richness.70 6.13 4.94 4. 1387 .87 2.33 2.16 1.43 2.33 5.55 2.51 2.44 5.95 2.43 5.69 3.79 4.90 1. A progression in the use of MVs from the early to the later generation is also evident from the decreasing trend in the use of MV2s and the increasing trend in the use of MV4s.26 5.75 2.72 1.19 0.68 6.44 5.57 1.23 4.69 1.04 5.26 5.41 2.63 5.32 3.42 2.01 2.02 2.66 2.28 2.57 2.09 2.99 5.52 5.52 2.40 3.85 2.01 5.51 5.80 3.13 2.71 1.82 6.23 4. Indices of the spatial diversity of the rice varieties grown in major rice growing provinces of the Philippines.07 2. although there is an observed slight decrease implying a lesser degree of equality in the area share distribution of varieties in the farmers’ fields.56 2.82 3.46 4.96 1.35 3.51 1.30 2.52 2.41 2.04 2.52 4.66 4.95 3.35 2.19 1.41 1.19 1.26 1.94 5.70 4. and evenness.49 2.66 1. PSB Rc10.91 5.91 3.95 – – 3.39 4. IR74. Issue 5 • 2008 therefore that future analyses consider the parental lines or the genetic makeup of the current rice varieties planted in the farmer fields to determine the exact state of genetic diversity in rice.00 2..83 2. These results can be used in further understanding the concern on genetic diversity as a factor to vulnerability to pests and diseases.92 4.53 2.05 1.06 5.82 4.89 1.55 3.88 1.25 3.03 1.72 2.48 2.21 2.30 6.94 1.96 2.77 2.58 2.87 1.72 3.

Thus. and on the determinants of the spatial diversity will be necessary for biodiversity conservation purposes. Agronomy Journal • Volume 100. The Green Revolution in developing countries: An economist’s assessment. FAO.. Agency for Int. Dalrymple. Cataquiz. Princeton. The economic determinants of cereal crop diversity on farms in the Ethiopian highlands. CO. R. Lynne Riernner Publ. as it is possible that newly released superior varieties which may not have diff used yet will be crowded-out by more recent variety releases. Rome. Benin. But the data used in the study is only quinquennial. David. (2)1. Paul Bauer and Dr. DC. groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN020402. and income distribution in the Philippines. B. the Philippines. 44:123–148. Dawe et al. p. 2006.G. REFERENCES Barker. Muñoz. Measuring the contribution of new varieties to increasing wheat yields. verified 1 July 2008). Boulder. (ed. Maligaya. A. 77–80. Washington. and the timely availability of certified and registered seed immediately after release must be ensured in order not to delay the diff usion of the variety. 2006. 31:197–208. Julieta F. Agric. C. 1986. and the staff of the Socioeconomics Division for the concerted works on the data. Econ. Finally.C. Magurran. In wp/Gollin%20The%20Green%20Revolution. 1998. The authors also thank Dr. Jeremy Singer. Rose (ed. Dawe. and B. verified 1 July 2008). Inst. Catalog of Philippine Seed Board Rice (PSB Rc) varieties. The impact of adoption of modern rice technology on the productivity and equity of lowland farmers in Central Luzon. 1988. the study showed accounts of early adoption of new varieties. Rev..pdf (accessed September 2007. the Philippines. Herdt. 1983. and S. Otsuka (ed. Nueva Ecija. Otsuka. 1994. Philippine Seedboard (PSB)/National Seed Industry Council list of varieties. J. 1997. Plant Var. 2003.un. The aggregate measure of replacement period of rice varieties in the country is around 8 to 11 yr despite the high rate of release of new rice varieties. The successful performance of new varieties in village demonstration sites.. There is an indication of a relative increase in richness and lower variety dominance in the DS. Munoz. Italy. the three cross-section data showed that around 70 to 80% of the rice areas in the country are planted to only 10 different varieties in a given period. Monitoring of rice-based farm households in strategic rice areas (A BAS-PhilRice Project) Manual of operations. Seed subsidies need to be well targeted and of limited duration.. Available at http:// www. On the adoption of new varieties.F. results showed that there are relatively wide differences in diversity across provinces but not so clear trends across periods. The Green Revolution: An end of century perspective. In C. The rice economy of Asia. PhilRice.pdf (accessed September 2007.. new varieties are superior to the old ones. Laguna. Available at http://unpan1. Thelma Padolina of the Plant Breeding and Biotechnology Division of the Philippine Rice Research Institute for giving information on the latest variety releases and their characteristics. Inst. and three anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Philippine Rice Res. PhilRice Tech.) Proc of the 8th National Rice Review and Planning Workshop. J. are tried and planted by farmers in the far-from-the-source areas. which limits more trend analysis of diversity.P. 89–96. Rice farmers generally plant only one or two varieties per season in their field. Dev. 51–106. and D. and D. with the majority being varieties released more than 5 yr before the survey period. Philippine Rice Res. Washington. and C. which has then become popular. Issue 5 • 2008 . This area share per variety differs by province. Press. Econ. S. Newly approved rice varieties. Ehui. Fernandez (ed. In terms of spatial diversity indices. Thus. there is a lag between variety release and the initiation of adoption. PhilRice Maligaya.. a closer examination of the provincial indices indicate that to some extent the proximity of the rice area to the source of original seeds or to the experiment area has an effect on the current state of morphological diversity and that farmer to farmer learning is a strong factor for this. some farmers’ selection varieties such as the case of PSB Rc34 or Burdagol and NSIC Rc122 or Angelica and Masipag varieties are adopted in farmer fields even before they are officially released. land reform. 1991. 1984. Bangkok. G. request (verified 1 July 2008). of the 20th Session of the International Rice Commission.. the Philippines. R. Princeton Univ. Technological change. Brennan. PhilRice. The rate of crop varietal replacement on farms: Measures and empirical results for wheat. Evenson. D.. In addition. Ecological diversity and its measurement. The average replacement period is lowest during the DS in irrigated areas (8–9 yr) which implies a faster adoption rate. DC. 2007. V. Inst.. PhilRice. Manila. Food and Agriculture Office. however. S. Any remaining errors remain those of the authors.E. Philippines. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank Ms.) Why does the Philippines import rice? Meeting the challenge of trade liberalization. 1995. Nueva Ecija. Econ. Casiwan. Resources for the Future. Develop. Bureau of Science and Technol. J. More specific variety monitoring is important 1388 and should be considered in the mandate of the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics who conducts sample quarterly survey of rice-based Pender. Seeds 4:99–106.. it is important that the current provincial variety adoption rates and diversity be taken into account when planning for variety testing and promotion. Maligaya. 1–3 Mar. Nueva Ecija. but there is no sufficient evidence of significant changes in the spatial diversity. Marketing Agric.. This information has implications on the on-farm genetic diversity of rice. Byerlee. These findings should be considered in the policy of variety release and promotion. Philippines. R. 2002.philrice. Smale. Francisco. In R. Int.. 1997. 2003. Padolina. It is possible that only the varieties which performed well in the near-the-source areas.williams. Lessons from three decades of green revolution in the Philippines. 1995. Brennan. Thailand. David and K. On variety diversification. Nueva Ecija. It is important that the seed network responsible for promoting new varieties be strengthened in order that all new varieties would have at least been tried by farmers in other locations and its potential taken advantage of before it will be crowded-out by varieties tested superior in other locations. C. Bull. Rice Res. and K. In D.) 1985. Evenson. Further studies on the exact genetic diversity of varieties in farmers’ fields. spread and production impact of modern rice varieties in Asia. p. Herdt. PhilRice Leaflet as of May 2007. and D. Gollin..W. Inst. 23–26 July 2002. This reflects that in general. p. Adoption.B. Development and spread of high-yielding rice varieties in developing countries. Cordova.. J. T. NJ. proper information flow of these successes. Philippine Rice Res. R. Otsuka.W. Genetic diversity in rice. Los Baños. Estudillo. R.) Modern rice technology and income distribution in Asia. Pariñas and Ms. participatory breeding and consideration of farmers’ selection as strategies for variety testing should continually be explored and pursued.E. 52:175–195. and K. 2004. Available at http://www.the continued adoption of varieties that guarantee higher yields and command higher market price also shows that farmers respond to economic incentives. IRRI and Science city of Muñoz (Philippines):PhilRice. Muñoz. Capule.

Socioeconomics Div. Inst. Brennan.. Philippine Rice Res. Rubenstein. Quintana. J. the Philippines.. and Ruifa Hu. Inst. Muñoz. Crop genetic resources: An economic appraisal. P. R. Quintana. Shoemaker. DC. Agric. Philippine Rice Res..D. the Philippines.. Muñoz.. J. Muñoz. Quintana. Maligaya. Nueva Ecija. Meng. Washington. E. Working paper on economic profi le of rice farmers in the different agro-climatic environment of Visayas. 1991a... May 2005. the Philippines. and G. 28:13–26. Sullivan. Smale. Determinants of spatial diversity in modern wheat: Examples from Australia and China. Working paper on economic profi le of rice farmers in the different agro-climatic environment of Central Luzon. Socioeconomics Div. Heisey. Working paper on economic profile of rice farmers in the different agro-climatic environment of Region 2. M. 1991d. Frisvold. Bull. Maligaya. Nueva Ecija. Working paper on economic profi le of rice farmers in the different agro-climatic environment of bicol region. J.P. 1991c. 2005. Inst. A report from the Economic Research Service. J. J.. Socioeconomics Div. USDA Economic Info. J.. Muñoz. Philippine Rice Res. 2. 1991b. Maligaya. Socioeconomics Div. USDA.. Maligaya. Inst.Quintana. K. Issue 5 • 2008 1389 . the Philippines. 2003. Agronomy Journal • Volume 100. ERS. Nueva Ecija. Econ. Philippine Rice Res. Nueva Ecija.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful