Advances in Life Sciences 5(9), Print : ISSN 2278-3849, 3495-3499, 2016
Green gram Varietal Trial – Case Study of Participatory Technology
Development
ARUN BALAMATTI1* AND YOGESH G H2**
ICAR-JSS-Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Suttur 571129, Mysuru District,
Karnataka State, India
2
Room No. 235, District Administrative Building, Chamarajanagar District 571313,
Karnataka State, India.
email: arunbalamatti@gmail.com, jsskvk@gmail.com*; ghy23@rediffmail.com**
ABSTRACT
The paper highlights the importance of process over
outcomes in extension research and the value of
participatory approaches over ‘top-down’ extension
methods. The case study is based on the Participatory
Technology Development (PTD) conducted by AME
Foundation, an NGO. A group of 20 farmers, when
offered an opportunity to introduce an intercrop in
sorghum farming system for improving soil fertility,
chose multiple varieties on their own terms. Four
varieties of green gram were assessed for their
suitability as intercrop in sorghum fields. The
farmers, especially women, analysed the varieties not
only for soil fertility, but also for yield, income, taste
and keeping quality of green gram after cooking. They
finally chose one variety for market and another for
consumption. The paper provides evidences of useful
experiences to the government for accepting, adopting,
and institutionalizing participatory extension
approaches for effectively working towards
sustainable agriculture.
Key words Participatory Technology Development,
LEISA, dry land agriculture, soil
fertility, livelihoods.
Green gram Varietal Trial – Case Study
on Participatory Technology Development
So long as the technology development and
utilization of such technologies is being done by
two different actors, the gap between technology
generation and adoption is bound to exist in the
process of agriculture development. This is so
because the perception of the need, nature and
utility of technologies are often different; socio-
economic and cultural contexts of the two different
types of actors only make it more complex. While
the mainstream adheres to ‘transfer of technology’
approach to agricultural development, the NGOs
have attempted various ‘working with the people’
models in India and many developing countries.
Therefore, the efficiency of technology
development and delivery in the ‘top-down model’
normally practiced by the governments and the
effectiveness of the ‘bottom-up models’ generally
advocated by the civil society organizations
continue to be argued and debated.
The following views are a few examples:
A review of some major successful poverty-
reduction rural-development organizations in Asia
in the early 1990s showed that most of them had
tight administrative structures and little
‘participation’ as advocated by the participatory-
mainstream (Jain, 1994).
In the last decade (1980s), a growing number
of organizations have approached agricultural
research and extension in ways that involve farmers
as equal partners in all stages of the development
process. The groups have also focused on
strengthening the capacities of farmers and rural
communities to experiment and innovate.
It has been recognized that these interactive
approaches, often referred to by the umbrella term
Participatory Technology Development (PTD) (van
Veldhuizen et al ., 1997), are necessary in order to
improve agriculture and natural resource
management, especially in the less well-endowed
rural areas (Röling, 1996).
In some approaches to “ participatory
development”, collaboration implies involving
farmers in programmes and activities that are still
largely controlled by the development professionals
and their organizations. In contrast, PTD gives a
central role to farmers and other land users in
defining the R&D agenda and in planning,
implementing and evaluating the activities. PTD
aims specifically at increasing the R&D capacities
of farmers and other land users.
3496 Advances in Life Sciences 5(9), 2016
The main principles of PTD are, development
based on farmers’ needs, relevance of local
knowledge and local innovative capacities,
complementarity of knowledge from formal science
and collaboration on the basis of equal partnerships
(Wettasinha et al., 2003).
In the present case study the authors present
how the harmony between the community and
project implementation agency bring about fruitful
collaboration.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This case study is one among many PTD
processes undertaken by Agriculture Man Ecology
Foundation (AME Foundation), since the early
1980s. AME Foundation is a Dutch-founded training
programme on sustainable agriculture, which
became a bilateral project between the Government
of India and the Royal Netherlands Embassy (RNE)
and eventually became a Non Government
Organization (NGO), registered in India. AME
Foundation is a resource organization working in
the southern Indian states of Andhra Pradesh,
Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. AME Foundation works
largely in the dry land agriculture areas with groups
of farmers in clusters of villages to promote the
use of Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture
(LEISA) technologies, employing participatory
tools like Farmer Field School (FFS) and PTD.
Alternative farming practices generated in the
process of working with farmers are scaled up
through and with partner NGOs and NGO
networks. Capacity building of farmers and the staff
of NGOs therefore constitute the major activities
of AME Foundation.
This is a case study on PTD and the case
began with AME Foundation, through its Vijayapura
Area Unit (erstwhile Bijapur district), entering into
Savanahalli village in Vijayapura taluk early in 2006.
The purpose was to work with farmers and to work
towards better handling of natural farm resources
– soil, water and biodiversity. The goal was to
improve the livelihoods of resource-poor dry land
farm families, mostly the small and marginal
farmers, by improving the farming systems.
Savanahalli is a village about 15 km from
Vijayapura district headquarters, off the state
highway. The 765 households in the village present
a panorama of castes and cultures – Lingayats
(major caste in northern Karnataka), Kurubas
(Shepherds), Muslims, Scheduled Castes and many
other communities add to the cultural mosaic. This
cultural diversity, however, is not reflected on the
vast farm lands. Widely known for the deep black
soils best suited for sorghum cultivation, vast
stretches of sorghum mono cropping characterize
the region. The high reputation of the best quality
sorghum crop grown along the Doni river banks
notwithstanding, the declining yields, poor prices
and the increasingly unpredictable rains are resulting
in the sorghum crop giving up its place of pride
gradually to more ‘cash-earning’ and ‘nutrient-
draining’ crop, such as sunflower.
The team of AME Foundation mobilized a
group of 20 farmers into Bhoomatha Susthira
Krishikara Sangha (meaning Mother Earth
Sustainable Farmers’ Group), including 7 women
members. The NGO, along with the farmers’ group,
discussed, analysed and concluded that one crop a
year and the same crop year after year was
rendering, on one hand, rich soils less fertile and,
on the other hand, the livelihoods vulnerable.
In a district notorious for three seasons –
summer, hot summer and extreme hot summer,
with less than 600mm average rainfall, farming can
hardly be a remunerative source of livelihood. Over
80 percent of the cultivated area and as many small
farmers are dependent on dry farming; the gradual
loss of the hopes of farm families and the rich and
diverse farming systems involving bajra, cotton,
groundnut, and many pulses, is beyond monetary
assessment.
Many technology options were conceived,
including indigenous and modern, for addressing
the issues such as productivity enhancement,
reducing the cost of crop cultivation, improving
the system productivity and so on. It was not the
crop and the yields alone that came under the
scanner but the resources that support the crops,
especially the precious natural resources – soil,
water and biodiversity. On-farm rainwater
management, improving soil fertility and addressing
the mono cropping problem with intercropping
practices were the usual mantras (solutions)
promoted by AME Foundation. In this context, the
option of intercropping sorghum with green gram
as a means of improving soil fertility by breaking
the mono cropping practice and adding another food
crop that could also bring a small income to the
community was decided collectively.
Of all the pulses green gram was proposed
since it is a regular part of the farmers’ diet and an
BALAMATTI and YOGESH, Green gram Varietal Trial – Case Study of Participatory Technology Development
important source of protein. The bread made out
of sorghum (jowar roti) is the local staple food.
Many vegetables and pulses go very well with jowar
roti adding spice and nutrients. Chilli paste (includes
dried red chilli and garlic) is the other popular
combination. The farmers did grow chillies,
sporadically, for home consumption. A cheaper
chilli variety – Byadgi - the one with luxurious red
colour, which is less hot, comes from the
neighbouring Dharwad district. Chilli promotion
wasn’t the right option in terms of addressing soil
fertility and hence it was not considered. Next, there
was this delicacy prepared by using the flour of
chickpea (preparation also includes mixing with
onion). Chickpea, again, was a native crop that
disappeared with the Helicoverpa pod-borer
menace, which originally damaged cotton bolls
before moving on to chickpea and many other
crops. Thus, chickpea had an imminent ‘enemy’
to deal with and was also ruled out as an option.
The farmers could still grow green gram, the next
best option that farmers relish eating with jowar
roti. While there are many other vegetables that are
eaten with roti, the three options, chilli, chickpea
and green gram, were particularly suitable to carry
to the fields, as they are all essentially dry
preparations. Green gram is a short duration legume
that can escape short dry spells, add nitrogen to
the soil and hence, a good choice for growing under
residual moisture conditions.
Thus, green gram emerged as a suitable
intercrop option to improve soil fertility on one hand
and to add to the total returns on the other as ‘the
NGO option’ (AME Foundation, the project
implementer) and was thus offered to the farmers.
Considering the poor yield of the local variety (<
3q/ha), AME Foundation proposed to try out
alternative, better yielding green gram varieties.
They were offered alternatives as a means of getting
higher yields, earning higher returns and that their
soils would get more fertile. Polite, ‘hard-to-say-
no’ type of farmers, as they are, they agreed to try.
Thus, the process of introducing an intercrop for
improving soil fertility as ‘our expected outcome’
got underway.
The Kharif season (late June to September)
of the year 2006-07 brought some early rains. The
farmers’ group chose two farmers – Mallappa
Kalappagol and Ramesh Halli, for cultivating the
new green gram varieties on behalf of the group.
AME Foundation suggested the leading varieties,
3497
China Moong, Pusa Baisakhi and Selection-4, to
be tried along with the local variety. The farmers
promptly bought the seeds from the Regional
Agricultural Research Station (RARS), Vijayapura,
which operates in the district under the aegis of
the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.
After the crop was harvested and the yield
data were compiled, while the staff of AME
Foundation were about to conclude the trial, the
farmers, particularly women, were not finished with
their judgment, yet. The yields apart, they were
equally keen on knowing the taste and durability of
varieties after cooking.
AME Foundation guided the farmers in
designing the ‘Organoleptic testing’ phase of the
trial. The four green gram varieties were cooked
separately, without salt, spice or any additives to
get the pure and original taste. The ‘expert tasters’
in the groups were identified and were asked to
wash their mouths before tasting each variety one
after the other. As majority of the farmers are
habituated to eating beetle leaf and areca nut,
women wanted to make sure the ‘tasters’ do not
miss the purity of green gram taste.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The farmers revealed that it was not new for
them growing green gram, though not as an
intercrop but as a catch crop, when there are early
showers in the months of May-June. Predominantly
a Rabi farming system (September to January), the
district does not often get such early showers. That
means they had not been cultivating green gram on
a regular basis, in the recent past.
The farmers preferred to grow the suggested
new varieties, along with the local variety, as sole
crops, not as intercrops, for it was a trial and they
were keen to know the yield potential of each of
the variety. Typically, the farmers’ attention was
drawn to the yields and market price of each variety
to enthuse them since it was difficult to demonstrate
the effect of green gram on soil fertility alone, in
short time. The average yields from two farmers
and a quarter acre under each variety revealed that
Pusa Baisakhi yielded the highest (4q/ha), followed
by Selection 4 (3.5 q/ha), whereas the yield of China
Moong was less than 3.5q/ha, and the local variety
yielding the least, about 3q/ha. The Selection-4
fetched the best price due to its shiny and attractive
grains (Rs.2800/q compared to Rs.2600/q for all
other varieties).
3498 Advances in Life Sciences 5(9), 2016
The variety Selection-4 emerged the best
tasting variety. The cooked varieties were then put
to longevity test to verify how long each variety
would last without getting stale. The women
conceded that green gram is normally cooked in
the early morning hours, around 6 am, and carried
to the field along with jowar roti. After eating for
breakfast and lunch, if the food is still leftover, it
would be brought home to be eaten along with
dinner at around 8pm. Thus, the green gram
preparation would have to last about 14 hours after
cooking and being carried to the field under hot
sun, often at temperatures close to 40 0C. AME
Foundation had to confront another moment of
anxiety before the trial was to be concluded. The
farmers – again the women – said November
month, in which the trial was conducted, was not
the ideal time for this particular test. It was winter
and the green gram dish preparation had to be tested
under summer for knowing its true longevity.
The team of AME Foundation and the farmers
waited until the summer of 2007 and did the cooking
test yet again. Selection-4 was expected to be better
over the remaining three varieties in terms of good
price, good taste and better keeping quality,
overthrowing the high yields of Pusa Baisakhi. It
was not to be. The conclusion became more
intriguing when Pusa Baisakhi was ahead of
Selection-4 in its keeping quality, lasting 24 hours
in both winter and summer, while Selection-4 lasted
24 hours in winter but only 14 hours in summer.
Thus, Pusa Baisakhi had good yield and longer
keeping quality whereas Selection 4 had good taste
and higher price. Therefore, the farmers decided
to include both the varieties as intercrops in
sorghum farming system, but with different
purposes.
The trials ended with the farmers choosing
Selection-4 for market and Pusa Baisakhi for home
consumption, with the compromise that the taste,
to certain extent, could be manoeuvred using more
spices. It took about one year to look at the
alternatives - their yields, returns, taste and keeping
quality. And the fact remained that the effort, for
AME Foundation, had started with the purpose of
improving soil fertility. Now that the farmers
decided to choose not one but two varieties, one
for consumption and one for market, the intention
of improving soil fertility had to remain incidental.
It was the farmers’ choices which mattered in the
end. While the farmers did get more than what they
had asked for, the team of AME Foundation equally
appreciated the lessons from this PTD. Thus, while
the farmers owned the technology development
process, the implementing agency learned how to
facilitate a participatory trial involving the
community.
The case clearly reinforces what Biggs (2008,
2009) had to say, “I think we can learn more from
actor-oriented studies of situations where positive
social inclusion, equity, and poverty-reduction
changes have already taken place”
The case also reiterates what Röling (2009)
wrote, “Farming systems research makes the
following points:
(1) Farmers often know more than scientists when
it comes to the characteristics and dynamics
of the environment in which they farm,
including risks of water logging, drought,
pests, thieves, and so forth.
(2) Farmers know better than scientists the
criteria by which innovations will be judged
and the (possibly multiple) objectives the
innovations have to serve. Researchers usually
assume that the objective is to become more
productive or resource-efficient. For farmers
many other criteria and objectives pertain.
Since adoption is a voluntary act by farmers,
it is their opinion that should prevail.
(3) Small-scale farmers (M/F) are intelligent
beings. You can ask them about things and
discuss things with them, and do not have to
carry out costly and time consuming
extractive research to find out about
something yourself”.
Levelling ‘our’ expectations with ‘their needs’
continues to be an interesting duel in participatory
trials, wherein the project implementers have to
learn to keep their options open for the farmers to
consider all possible gains and make a choice which
may or may not be limited to the scope of the trial
as envisaged at the beginning of the trial.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge the spirited
participation and cooperation f the farm families of
Savanahalli village in Vijayapura district who made
this trial truly participatory and a rich learning
experience. The authors also acknowledge AME
Foundation for offering the institutional platform
for the authors to learn and work closely with the
farm families.
BALAMATTI and YOGESH, Green gram Varietal Trial – Case Study of Participatory Technology Development
FUNDING
This work was supported by the funds from
the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of
the United Nations under the partnership project
between the FAO and the AME Foundation,
Bengaluru, India.
LITERATURE CITED
Biggs, S. D. 2007. ‘Reflections on the Social Embeddedness
of S&T in Rural and Agricultural Transformations:
Learning from Positive Experiences of Poverty Reduction
and Social Inclusion’ paper prepared for the International
Conference on Policy Interventions and Rural
Transformations: Comparative Issues (hosted by the
College of Humanities and Development of the China
Agricultural University), Beijing 10-16 September.
Biggs, S. D. 2008. ‘Learning from the positive to reduce
rural poverty and increase social justice: Institutional
innovations in agricultural and natural resources research
3499
and development’, Experimental Agriculture 44 (1): 37-
60.
Jain, P.S. 1994. ‘Managing for success: Lessons from Asian
development programmes’, World Development 22 (9):
1363-77.
Röling, N. G. 2009. Conceptual and Methodological
Developments in Innovation. Innovation Africa:
Enriching Farmers’ Livelihoods.
Röling, N. G. 1996. Towards an Interactive Agriculture
Science. In. European Journal of Agricultural Education
and Extension 2 (4): 35-48.
van Veldhuizen, L., A. Waters-Bayer, H, de Zeeuw, 1997.
Developing Technology with Farmers. A Trainer’s Guide
for Participatory Learning. Zed Books Ltd., London.
Wettasinha C, van Veldhuizen L & Waters-Bayer A (eds),
Advancing Participatory Technology Development: case
studies on integration into agricultural research, extension
and education. 2003. Silang, Cavite, Philippines: IIRR /
ETC Ecoculture / CTA. 3 p.
Received on 18-04-2016 Accepted on 23-04-2016