Table 6.

AVERAGE WEIGHT (in mg), LENGTH (In Mm), HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL DIAMETER (in mm) OF DIFFERENT INDIGENOUS RICE CULTIVARS

NAME OF RICE

WEIGHT (mg) 26.0 21.1 22.3 26.1 29.8 26.1 18.7 23.2 25.0 33.7 23.6 15.3 18.8 24.0 37.6 12.3

LENGTH (mm) 8.8 9.5 7.8 8.6 9.1 9.4 7.8 8.1 8.3 9.9 10.1 7.1 8.1 9.6 10.2 7.6

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

BAKHAW BULAW DOS OHOY NA DILAW DOS OHOY NA PUTI INASUSENA KABUONG KADARI KAMANANG NA DILAW KAMANANG NA PUTI LINABNIG MILAGROSA MINAY-ONG PALAWAN PULUTANG PULA PULUTANG PUTI SINTANG ANOD

HORIZONTAL VERTICAL DIAMETER DIAMETER (mm) (mm) 3.3 1.7 2.8 1.7 3.2 1.9 3.7 1.9 3.4 2.0 3.5 1.9 3.4 2.0 3.5 1.7 3.3 1.9 3.6 2.1 2.8 1.8 3.5 1.9 3.1 2.1 3.7 2.1 3.7 2.1 3.0 1.7

Table 6 shows the average weight, length, horizontal and vertical diameter of the different indigenous rice varieties. In weight, the maximum average is in Pulutang Puti at 37.6 mg, while the minimum is in Sintang anod at 12 mg. in length, the maximum average is in Pulutang Puti at 10.2 mm, while the minimum is in Minay-ong at 7.1 mm. In horizontal diameter, the maximum average is in Dos ohoy na Puti, Pulutang Puti, and Pulutang Pula 3.7 mm. the minimum is in Milagrosa, and Bulaw at 2.8 mm. In vertical diameter, the maximum average is in Pulutang Pula, Pulutang Puti, Palawan, and Linabnig at 2.1 mm, while the minimum is in Sintang anod, Kamanang na Dilaw, Bulaw, and Bakhaw at 1.7 mm.

Figure 23 : AVERAGE WEIGHT, LENGTH, HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL DIAMETER OF DIFFERENT INDIGENOUS RICE VARIETIES
40
37.6

35
29.8

33.7

30
26 26.1 26.1 25 23.2 23.6 24

25
22.3 21.1

20

18.7

18.8

WEIGHT (mg)
15.3

15
12.3

LENGTH (mm) 9.5 7.8 9.4 8.6 9.1 9.9 10.1 7.8 8.1 8.3 7.1 8.1 9.6 10.2 7.6 HORIZONTAL DIAMETER (mm) VERTICAL DIAMETER (mm)

10

8.8

3.3 2.8 3.2 3.7 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.6 2.8 3.5 3.1 3.7 3.7 3 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.9 2 1.9 2 1.7 1.9 2.1 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.7

The graph in Fig. 23 shows the average weight, length, horizontal and vertical diameter of the different indigenous rice varieties. In weight, the maximum average is in Pulutang Puti at 37.6 mg, while the minimum is in Sintang anod at 12 mg. in length, the maximum average is in Pulutang Puti at 10.2 mm, while the minimum is in Minay-ong at 7.1 mm. In horizontal diameter, the maximum average is in Dos ohoy na Puti, Pulutang Puti, and Pulutang Pula 3.7 mm. the minimum is in Milagrosa, and Bulaw at 2.8 mm. In vertical diameter, the maximum average is in Pulutang Pula, Pulutang Puti, Palawan, and Linabnig at 2.1 mm, while the minimum is in Sintang anod, Kamanang na Dilaw, Bulaw, and Bakhaw at 1.7 mm.

4.2 Germination trials of twelve IRCs seeds following three techniques: a) in cups or petri dishes as beds with water, b) Sabwag method, and Hasok method) Table 7. Average Percentage Germination Percentage in Twelve (12) Indigenous Rice Varieties at Day 6
GERMINATION PERCENTAGE (%) in the three techniques NAME OF THE RICE In cups/petri dish with Water DOS OHOY NA DILAW (DODI) DOS OHOY NA PUTI (DOPU) INASUSENA (INAS) KABUONG (KABU) KADARI (KADA) KAMANANG NA DILAW KAMANANG NA PUTI (KAPU) MILAGROSA (MILA) MINAY-ONG (MINA) PALAWAN (PALA) PULUTANG PUTI (PUTI) SINTANG ANOD (SINA) 64 69 85 49 75 93 58 59 73 92 39 52 76 66 87 43 81 97 40 24 71 79 38 38 19 5.0 23 14 24 13 2.0 24 25 69 3.0 4.0 Sabwag Hasok

Note: Percentage germination is equal to the number of seeds that that germinate at Day 6 divided by the total number of seeds used in the germating trial per IRC.

Table 7 shows the average germination percentage in different IRCs at the three germination techniques. The maximum germination percentage in germination with water is in Kamanang na Dilaw at 93 %, and the minimum is in Pulutang Puti at 39 %. In germination by Sabwag method, the maximum germination percentage is in Kamanang na Dilaw at 97%, while the minimum percentage is in Milagrosa at 24%. In germination by hasok method, the maximum germination percentage is in Palawan at 69%, while the minimum is in Kamanang na Puti at 2%.

Fig. 24. Germinaton Percentage At 6th Day Of Indigenous Rice Varieties On The Different Germination Modes
97 93 87 85 81 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 19 14 5 13 2 3 4 24 24 25 49 43 40 39 38 76 69 66 58 59 52 75 73 71 79 69

100 90

92

GERMINATION HASOK

64

GERMINATION WATER

GERMINATION SABWAG
38

23

24

The graph in Figure 24 shows the average germination percentage in different indigenous rice varieties at the three germination type. The maximum germination percentage in germination with water is in Kamanang na Dilaw at 93 %, and the minimum is in Pulutang Puti at 39 %. In germination by Sabwag method, the maximum germination percentage is in Kamanang na Dilaw at 97%, while the minimum percentage is in Milagrosa at 24%. In germination by hasok method, the maximum germination percentage is in Palawan at 69%, while the minimum is in Kamanang na Puti at 2%.

Table 8. Results of the Test Of Difference Among The Type Of Germination In Relation To The Germination Percentage
One factor ANOVA Germination

Mean 18.8 67.3 61.7 49.3

n 12 12 12 36

Std. Dev 18.16 17.10 23.80 29.28 HASOK WATER SABWAG Total

ANOVA table Source Treatment Error Total SS 16,937.17 13,075.58 30,012.75 df 2 33 35 MS 8,468.583 396.230 F 21.37 pvalue 1.11E06 F crit 3.284918

Post hoc analysis p-values for pairwise t-tests HASOK 18.8 HASOK SABWAG WATER 18.8 61.7 67.3 8.05E-06 1.03E-06 .4905 SABWAG 61.7 WATER 67.3

Tukey simultaneous comparison t-values (d.f. = 33) HASOK 18.8 HASOK SABWAG WATER critical values for experimentwise error rate: 0.05 0.01 2.46 3.13 18.8 61.7 67.3 5.28 5.98 0.70 SABWAG 61.7 WATER 67.3

Figure 29 : Comparison Of Germination Modes In Terms Of Germination Percentage Based On The Test Of Differences
120.0

100.0

80.0

60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0 HASOK WATER SABWAG

Figure 29 shows the relationship of the three germination types that germination in water (as the control) has best result in terms of germination percentage in early days of the seeds, germination by sabwag method has a moderate response, then germination by hasok method has the slowest germination response.

Table 9. AVERAGE LENGTH (in cm) OF SHOOT GROWTH IN DIFFERENT INDIGENOUS RICE VARIETIES ON DIFFERENT GERMINATION TYPES AT 9TH DAY
NAME OF THE RICE WATER DOS OHOY NA DILAW DOS OHOY NA PUTI INASUSENA KABUONG KADARI KAMANANG NA DILAW KAMANANG NA PUTI MILAGROSA MINAY-ONG PALAWAN PULUTANG PUTI SINTANG ANOD 4.42 3.81 6.45 5.39 6.13 6.29 6.17 4.48 6.24 7.71 5.81 5.06 AVERAGE SHOOT GROWTH (cm) SABWAG 10.65 10.83 14.62 7.52 11.71 13.43 9.58 10.79 11.60 12.30 11.31 10.07 HASOK 7.64 7.91 11.57 5.55 8.60 10.25 6.80 7.81 8.56 8.35 9.48 7.28

Table 9 shows the average shoot growth of the different indigenous rice varieties in three types of germination. The longest shoot growth in the germination in water is in Palawan at 7.71cm. while the shortest is the Dos ohoy na Puti at 3.81cm. in germination by sabwag method the longest is in Inasusena at 14.62 cm, while the shortest is in Kabuong at 7.52cm. in germination by hasok method, the longest is in Inasusena at 11.57cm, while the shortest is in Kabuong at 5.55cm. In terms of shoot length, the longest is found in germination by sabwag method, followed by germination by hasok method, then the last is germination in water.

Figure 30 : AVERAGE LENGTH OF SHOOT GROWTH IN DIFFERENT INDIGENOUS RICE VARIETIES AT DIFFERENT TYPES OF GERMINATION

16 14.62 14 12 10 8.6 8 6 4.42 4 2 0 3.81 7.64 7.91 7.52 7.81 6.8 6.45 6.13 6.29 6.17 5.55 5.39 4.48 11.57 10.65 10.83 11.71 10.25 9.58 8.56 8.35 7.71 5.81 5.06 10.79 13.43 12.3 11.6 11.31 9.48 10.07

7.28

WATER SABWAG HASOK

6.24

The table shows the average shoot growth of the different indigenous rice varieties in three types of germination. The longest shoot growth in the germination in water is in Palawan at 7.71cm. while the shortest is the Dos ohoy na Puti at 3.81cm. in germination by sabwag method the longest is in Inasusena at 14.62 cm, while the shortest is in Kabuong at 7.52cm. in germination by hasok method, the longest is in Inasusena at 11.57cm, while the shortest is in Kabuong at 5.55cm. In terms of shoot length, the longest is found in germination by sabwag method, followed by germination by hasok method, then the last is germination in water.

Table 10. Results of the Test Of Difference Among The Type Of Germination In Relation To The Length Of Shoot Growth

One factor ANOVA

Mean 5.663 11.201 8.317 8.394 ANOVA table Source Treatment Error Total SS 184.090 0 76.9366 261.026 6

SHOOT GROWTH n 12 12 12 36 SHOOT GROWTH df 2 33 35 Std. Dev 1.0808 1.8182 1.5876 2.7309

WATER SABWA G HASOK Total

MS 92.0450 0 2.33141

F 39.48

pvalue 1.76E -09

F crit 3.3158 3

Post hoc analysis p-values for pairwise t-tests WATER 5.663 WATER HASOK SABWAG 5.663 8.317 11.201 .0002 2.88E-10 .0001 HASOK 8.317 SABWA G 11.201

Tukey simultaneous comparison tvalues (d.f. = 33) WATER 5.663 WATER HASOK SABWAG critical values for experimentwise error rate: 0.05 0.01 9 2.46 3.13 5.663 8.317 11.201 4.26 8.88 4.63 HASOK 8.317 SABWA G 11.201

Figure 31: Comparison Of The Germination Types In Terms Of Shoot Growth Based On The Test Of Differences
16.000

14.000

12.000

10.000

8.000

6.000

4.000

2.000

0.000 WATER SABWAG HASOK

As shown in Figure 31 the relationship of the three germination types that germination by sabwag method has best result in terms of length in shoot growth, germination by hasok method has a moderate response, then germination in water has the lowest response in terms of length of shoot growth..

10

Table 11 : Average Length Of Root Growth In Different Indigenous Rice Varieties On Different Germination Types At 9th Day AVERAGE ROOT GROWTH (cm) WATER SABWAG 4.94 4.64 4.47 4.91 4.64 5.32 5.5 5.21 5.23 6.13 4.97 4.69 12.51 11.92 12.44 10.29 11.4 11.91 10.61 11.47 12.15 12.24 13.29 11.6

NAME OF THE RICE DOS OHOY NA DILAW DOS OHOY NA PUTI INASUSENA KABUONG KADARI KAMANANG NA DILAW KAMANANG NA PUTI MILAGROSA MINAY-ONG PALAWAN PULUTANG PUTI SINTANG ANOD

Table 11 shows the average root growth of the different indigenous rice varieties in three types of germination. The longest root growth in the germination in water is in Palawan at 6.13cm, while the shortest is the Inasusena at 4.47cm. In germination by sabwag method the longest is in Pulutang Puti at 13.29 cm, while the shortest is in Kabuong at 10.29cm. The best germination type in term of length in root growth was germination by sabwag method.

11

Figure 32 : Average Length Of Root Growth In Indigenous Rice Varieties Among The Different Types Of Germination
14 12.51 11.92 12 10.29 10 12.44 11.4 11.91 10.61 11.47 12.15 12.24 11.6

13.29

8 6.13 6 4.94 4.64 4.47 4.91 5.32 4.64 5.5 5.21 5.23 4.97 4.69

WATER SABWAG

The graph in Figure 32 shows the average root growth of the different indigenous rice varieties in three types of germination. The longest root growth in the germination in water is in Palawan at 6.13cm, while the shortest is the Inasusena at 4.47cm. In germination by sabwag method the longest is in Pulutang Puti at 13.29 cm, while the shortest is in Kabuong at 10.29cm. The best germination type in term of length in root growth was germination by sabwag method.

12

Table 12: Results of the Test Of Difference Among The Type Of Germination In Relation To The Length Of Root Growth

One factor ANOVA

Mean 5.054 11.819 8.437 ANOVA table Source Treatment Error Total root growth SS 274.5914 9.8170 284.4083 df 1 22 23 MS 274.59135 0.44623 F 615.36 pvalue 1.42E17 n 12 12 24 Std. Dev 0.4612 0.8245 3.5165 WATER SABWAG Total

ROOT

GROWTH

F crit 4.300949

Figure 33 : COMPARISON OF THE GERMINATION TYPE IN TERMS OF ROOT GROWTH BASED ON THE TEST OF DIFFERENCES
14.000 13.000 12.000 11.000 10.000 9.000 8.000 7.000 6.000 5.000 4.000 WATER SABWAG

Figure 33 shows the relationship of the three germination types that germination by sabwag method has best result in terms of length in root growth, then germination in water has the lowest response in terms of length of root growth.
13

Table 13: SURVIVAL PERCENTAGE OF INDIGENOUS RICE VARIETIES IN THE DIFFERENT GERMINATION TYPES (1 week after 9 days germination)

SURVIVAL PERCENTAGE IRC DOS OHOY NA DILAW DOS OHOY NA PUTI INASUSENA KABUONG KADARI KAMANANG NA DILAW KAMANANG NA PUTI MILAGROSA MINAY-ONG PALAWAN PULUTANG PUTI SINTANG ANOD WATER 62 30 26 26 58 32 40 50 20 40 20 32 SABWAG 85 83 80 54 56 94 58 60 76 78 22 30 HASOK 97 71 89 90 80 66 75 72 89 80 61 55

The data in Table 13 shows the survival percentage of the different indigenous rice varieties in three types of germination. The highest survival percentage in the germination in water is in Dos ohoy na Dilaw at 62 %. while the lowest is in Minay-ong and Pulutang Puti at 20%. In germination by sabwag method the highest is in Kamanang na Dilaw at 94% , while the lowest is in Pulutang Puti at 22%. In germination by hasok method, the highest is in Dos ohoy na Dilaw at 97%, while the lowest is in Sintang Anod at 55%. In terms of survival percentage the highest is in germination by hasok method, followed by the germination in sabwag method, and lastly is in the germination in water.

14

Figure 34 : SURVIVAL PERCENTAGE IN INDIGENOUS RICE VARIETIES IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF GERMINATION

100 90 80 71 70 60 50 40 40 30 30 20 10 0 26 26 20 22 20 32 40 32 30 66 62 54 58 56 58 60 50 61 55 97 89 85 83 80 90 80 75 76 72 94 89 80 78

WATER SABWAG HASOK

The graph in Figure 34 shows the survival percentage of the different indigenous rice varieties in three types of germination. The highest survival percentage in the germination in water is in Dos ohoy na Dilaw at 62 %. while the lowest is in Minay-ong and Pulutang Puti at 20%. In germination by sabwag method the highest is in Kamanang na Dilaw at 94% , while the lowest is in Pulutang Puti at 22%. In germination by hasok method, the highest is in Dos ohoy na Dilaw at 97%, while the lowest is in Sintang Anod at 55%. In terms of survival percentage the highest is in germination by hasok method, followed by the germination in sabwag method, and lastly is in the germination in water.

15

Table 14. TEST OF DIFFERENCE AMONG THE TYPE OF GERMINATION IN RELATION TO THE SURVIVAL PERCENTAGE

One factor ANOVA

Mean 36.3 64.7 77.1 59.4 ANOVA table Source Treatment Error Total SS 10,470.0 6 9,396.25 19,866.3 1 n 12 12 12 36 surviva l df 2 33 35 Std. Dev 14.03 22.22 12.80 23.82 WATER SABWA G HASOK Total

MS 5,235.02 8 284.735

F 18.39

pvalue 4.31E -06

F crit 3.28491 8

Post hoc analysis p-values for pairwise t-tests WATE R 36.3 WATER SABWAG HASOK 36.3 64.7 77.1 .0002 1.24E06 .0806 SABWA G 64.7 HASOK 77.1

Tukey simultaneous comparison tvalues (d.f. = 33) WATE R 36.3 WATER SABWAG HASOK critical values for experimentwise error rate: 0.05 0.01 16 2.46 3.13 36.3 64.7 77.1 4.11 5.92 1.80 SABWA G 64.7 HASOK 77.1

Figure 35 : COMPARISON OF THE GERMINATION TYPES IN TERMS OF SURVIVAL PERCENTAGE BASED ON THE TEST OF DIFFERENCES
120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 WATER SABWAG HASOK

Figure 35 shows the relationship of the three germination types that the germination by hasok method has best result in terms of survival percentage, germination by sabwag method has a moderate response, then germination in water has the lowest response in terms of survival percentage

4.3 Ethno-botanical aspects on rice planting methods, rice production and management as to nutrient, pest, water and time management within the technological interventions of a Location Specific Technology Development (LSTD) framework. 4.3.1 Indigenous Rice Farming In Upland Farmers for upland rice farming follow the hasok method. They first clean their farms and remove the plants within that area, this cleaning procedure is done in a direction suitable for the farmer, some are doing this in upward direction and others in a downward direction. After this they are going to burn the plants within that area, some burn it directly, while others put those plants in one area before burning them. After this, the planting of rice through hasok method follows. They use small sticks to make a hole one to two inches in size, and placed the rice seeds directly in the hole, some cover the hole with little amount of soil while others just let it open. Hasok method of farming is done in a downward direction. After this the seeds will just grow in time that it is favourable for its growth, in these the seeds adopt itself to the soil. After one week or two, depending on the weather condition the rice can already be seen above the ground. The farmers just let the rice without treating any fertilizer, pesticide, or even
17

watering the plants. For about 4 to 5 months waiting for the harvest they just visit their farms weekly or twice a month, some of the farmers remove the weeds whenever they visit, but some of those remove the weeds at the first 2 to 3 months on which the indigenous rice are in short height, but when the rice plant are already tall in height, the weeds are no longer removed since they do not affect the rice plant anymore. In the harvest time, farmers used gagta to get the rice. After this they will plant other crops instead of rice to retain the nutrients in the soil. This kind of farming mostly occurs once a year, from the month of April or May up to September to October. 4.3.2 Problems Encountered In Upland Rice Farming On pests (rats and maya birds) Before, pests are not a major problem in upland rice farming. Even though there are pests, it does not give too much effect in their harvest. But as the years go by, increase in pests population are observed, there are also decrease in upland rice farmers that makes it difficult for the existing farmers because the pests go in their farm. Weather condition Indigenous rice varieties can be harvested 4-5 months after planting. In these long period of waiting there are a lot of chances that the rice plants will be destroyed by the typhoon. In the previous years, effect of climate change is also observed, in which typhoon came in unexpected seasons, and no rainfall a long period of time that makes the rice plant die due to too much heat. 4.3.3 Indigenous Rice Farming In Lowland In terms of the farming procedure of indigenous rice varieties in lowland, it is similar with the modern rice varieties, by Tarok method. The difference is they used less amount of water for this variety because they thought that this kind of rice is not suitable for farms with too much water knowing the drought tolerance of these rice varieties. Indigenous rice has also less pests than modern rice that makes the farmers used just a little amount of pesticide for their plants. They used the same amount of fertilizer as to the modern rice varieties.

18

Table 15. NUMBER OF FARMERS PLANTING THE DIFFERENT RICE VARIETIES PER LOCATION
NUMBER OF FARMERS NAME OF BATONG CARANGAG COMAGAYCAY DATAG TIMBAAN THE RICE PALUWAY TOTAL BAKHAW 1 1 BULAW 1 1 DOS OHOY 2 NA DILAW 2 DOS OHOY 1 1 2 NA PUTI 4 INASUSENA 1 1 2 KABUONG 1 1 KADARI 5 5 KAMANANG 1 NA DILAW 1 KAMANANG 2 NA PUTI 2 KRUS 1 1 LINABNIG 1 1 2 MILAGROSA 1 1 MINAY-ONG 1 1 2 PALAWAN 1 1 PULUTANG 1 PULA 1 PULUTANG 2 3 PUTI 5 SINANG 1 PEDRO 1 SINTANG 1 ANOD 1 TOTAL 10 6 4 3 11

Table 15 shows the number of farmers that plants the specific indigenous rice varieties in every location. The largest percentage of farmers in a location is found in Brgy. Timbaan at 32%, while the lowest percentage is in Brgy. Datag at 9%. The highest percentage regarding to the number of farmers that plant the specific varieties is found in Kadari and Pulutang Puti at 14.7%, while the lowest percentage is in Sinang Pedro, Sintang Anod, Palawan, Pulutang Pula, Milagrosa, Krus, and Kamanang na Dilaw at 2.9%.

19

Figure : DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGE OF INDIGENOUS RICE CULTIVARS IN SAN ANDRES, CATANDUANES

BAKHAW
2.941176 2.941176 2.941176 2.941176 5.882353 14.70588

BULAW DOS OHOY NA DILAW

DOS OHOY NA PUTI

INASUSENA
11.76471

KABUONG KADARI KAMANANG NA DILAW KAMANANG NA PUTI

2.941176 2.941176

5.882353KRUS

LINABNIG
5.882353 2.941176 2.941176 5.882353 2.941176 5.882353 2.941176

MILAGROSA MINAY-ONG

PALAWAN
PULUTANG PULA
14.70588

PULUTANG PUTI SINANG PEDRO SINTANG ANOD

Figure 36 shows the per cent distribution of indigenous rice varieties. The highest percentage regarding to the number of farmers that plant the specific varieties is found in Kadari and Pulutang Puti at 14.7%, while the lowest percentage is in Sinang Pedro, Sintang Anod, Palawan, Pulutang Pula, Milagrosa, Krus, and Kamanang na Dilaw at 2.9%.

20

Figure : PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF INDIGENOUS RICE FARMERS IN 5 BARANGAYS OF SAN ANDRES CATANDUANES

29% 32%

BATONG PALUWAY CARANGAG COMAGAYCAY DATAG TIMBAAN

9%

18%

12%

Figure 37 shows the number of farmers that plants the specific indigenous rice varieties in every location. The largest percentage of farmers in a location is found in Brgy. Timbaan at 32%, while the lowest percentage is in Brgy. Datag at 9%.

Following the process research of maximizing student or youth and local community groups of farmers, this study involved the participation of 40 local farmers. Fifty per cent of this (or 20) are currently using IRCs for rice production. With permission from the local farmers, the names are as follows: a. Jimmy Abad b. Melvin Antonio c. Sabas Aquino sr.
21

d. Gerry Arcilla e. Dolores Bonina f. Teresita Bornolla

g. Felipe Cea h. Mirna Cea i. Domingo Manlangit j. Estrella Manlangit k. Gerry Manlangit l. Marizar Manlangit m. Norma Manlangit n. Carolina Osorio o. Jose Osorio p. Salvacion Osorio q. Pepito Postigo r. Jose Rodriguez s. Joey Sabido t. Arnol Santelices u. Carmen Santelices v. Juan Santelices w. Magdalena Santelices x. Rolan Santelices y. Rufina Santelices z. Luis Sodella aa. Alejandro Solero bb. Isidro Solero cc. Leo Solero dd. Olimpio Solla jr. ee. Josepuro Soner ff. Tomas Soner gg. Blanca Soquea hh. Amalia Suarez ii. Santiago Sumalde jj. Vicente Tabinas kk. Rebecca Tarroquin ll. Carmelo Taupo mm. Nilda Tolledo nn. Efren Tolentino

22

In many parts of South Asia (SA) and South East Asia (SEA), the comeback of traditional rice varieties in the production of rice becomes a controversial decision. For instance, Bengwayan (2010) of Ifugao has campaigned and became successful to some extent in convincing the return of native varieties which are now at the brink of disappearance and might lead to extinction. In other SA countries like India, the hybrid revolution of rice has forced the local farmers to abandon the native varieties of rice which are known to possess some genetic traits making these rices to have greater advantages for cooking and eating features. However, few studies are being supported now to focus on the comeback and this present study in San Andres contributes to this growing body of knowledge and interest about IRCs in this island. The local farmers of San Andres (n=40) provided the researchers (with student (EAE) and youth cooperators) with different insights on the reasons why there is a decreasing trend in the use of IRCs. Table 16 presents the responses.

Table 16. Statements Based On The Narratives Given By The Local Rice Farmers As To The Decrease In Using Indigenous Rice Varieties Or The Discontinuation Of Traditional Rice Planting Methods Which Takes A Longer Period Reasons of Discontinuation of Using IRCs We are already old and bodies are too weak to continue doing rice farming tasks We receive less support from the government since the hybrid or HYV are being recommended Local farmers opt to use modern or hybrid rice varieties because they can harvest about 3 times a year Increasing rice farming problems on pests and extreme weather conditions of continuous rain or flooding. They could not sell their indigenous rice at high price, less buyers of these rice varieties because people nowadays are not aware of these traditional or indigenous rice varieties.

4.3.5 Some Rice Production and Management Practices of the Rice Farmers Time Management Most of the upland rice farmers plants rice once a year. Then they plant other crops after rice, such as sweet potato. In the usual once a year upland rice farming, the planting seasons are in the month of April to July, and the harvest time is from the month of August to December. Some farmers plant twice a year. First, on June and harvest at October or November. Second, on December and harvest at April or May. Lowland farmers of indigenous rice plants have cropping of twice a year. Water Management

23

Indigenous rice varieties do not require too much water. In upland farms, farmers do not water the rice plant, rain is the only source of water by the plants. Some upland rice farms are near to bodies of water, like rivers and falls. This good location is favorable for the healthier growth of the rice plant. Lowland rice farms used little amount of water from the irrigation, spring, and other water source, but just enough water to prevent the plant from drying. Nutrient Management Most of the upland rice farmers do not put fertilizer in their plants because the soil in the mountain is very favorable for the healthier plant growth. Some of the upland rice farmers also used urea once before they plant rice. Lowland farmers of indigenous rice used urea and ammonia, but only a few amounts compared to lowland rice varieties today. Pests Management Pests in upland rice farms are rats, maya birds and some insects. For the rats, some used rakumin for poisoning, but most used atipil - mouse trap to catch the rats. Some farmers make a smoke in the surroundings of the farm, to make the pests leave the place. Few used starfish at the different points on the farm, because they believe that its smell doesnt like by the pests.

Table 17 shows a straightforward estimation of the reduction in the number of indigenous rice farmers in the 5 barangays from 1960 to 2012 based on timeline analysis. The introduction of hybrid rice varieties from 1980s to 1990 could be shown in much lower number of farmers abandoning the use of IRCs, but to shown even distribution in the timeline, fewer number of farmers were believed to be reflected.

Table 17. THEORETICAL STRAIGHTFORWARD ESTIMATION THE NUMBER INDIGENOUS RICE FARMERS IN THE STUDY LOCATIONS FROM 1960-2012 BASED ON THE AVAIALBLE DATA AND INTERVIEWS MADE AMONG FARMERS Barangays BATONG PALUWAY CARANGAG COMAGAYCAY DATAG TIMBAAN TOTAL 1960 42 36 24 30 54 186 1970 38 33 22 27 50 170 Number Of Indigenous Rice Farmers 1980 1990 2000 2005 34 28 21 18 29 24 18 15 20 17 12 9 24 20 15 10 45 37 27 23 152 126 93 75
24

2010 14 12 5 7 18 56

2012 7 6 2 3 9 27

In Table 18, the estimated selling prices of IRCs are presented, with the hope to explain how these farmers use the economics aspects of IRC production in deciding to shift to the other varieties. However, if government campaigns on the traditional rice comeback will be carried out or even the university will be engaged in this endeavour of focusing on IRCs production, then the trend in Table 17 could be reversed or number of farmers will retain through awareness program. Financial support is therefore necessary in this regard and with the addition of other livelihoods to avoid the kaingin or Hasok method. Table 18. ESTIMATED SELLING PRICE OF INDIGENOUS RICE IN DIFFERENT FARMERS
SELLING PRICE in PhP per kilo 30.00 and below 31.00-35.00 NUMBER OF FARMERS 5 18 RICE VARIETY Minay-ong, Inasusena, Dos ohoy na Puti Sintang-anod, Kabuong, Minay-ong, Bulaw, Linabnig, Dos ohoy na Puti, Palawan, Kamanang na Dilaw, Kadari, Pulutang Pula, Inasusena Dos ohoy na Puti, Bakhaw, Milagrosa, Minay-ong, Palawan, Kabuong, Pulutang Puti Kamanang na Dilaw, Dos ohoy na Puti, Pulutang Puti Dos ohoy na Puti, Dos ohoy na Dilaw Dos ohoy na Puti, Kamanang na Puti

36.00-40.00

41.00-45.00 46.00-50.00 51.00 and above

4 2 2

Chapter 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results presented, it can be concluded that a greater number of IRCs totalling to 39 IRCs are still available in the barangays covered during the study. Characterization of seeds shows that different indigenous rice cultivars have their distinct morphological characteristics in terms of color, structure, texture, weight, length, diameter, and many others. There are significant differences among the three germination types; in terms of germination percentage, length of root and shoot growth, and survival percentage. Germination percentage is favoured in germination in water, length of shoot and root growth favoured in germination by sabwag method, while the survival percentage favoured in germination by hasok method. Hasok method is the best germination type that will lead to many number of living rice plants. Ethno-botanical practices of indigenous rice farmers in San Andres,
25

Catanduanes are almost similar to each other, although there are just few of them used different way of farming. The present findings in the study are worthwhile inputs to the location-specific technology development adoption among farmers in Catanduanes. These are also valuable inputs to the bio-techno guides of the Catanduanes State University which are now being processed and re-packaged for the printing of brochures and field guides. Four statements based on the farmers narratives were formulated, namely: 1) Water requirement and pests are not problematic as to the use of IRCs in rice production. As such, bio-techno-guides are expected to focus on how integrated water management can be practiced with IRCs and the use of the marine bioresources (e.g. use of starfishes, sponges and other Cnidarias) in discovering natural pesticides to eradicate these limited rodent pests and birds. 2) With the limited number of cropping, production of IRCs can be maximized by establishing IRC plantation areas in the province which will have governmental or NGO support with CSUs intervening mechanism or the establishment of an Indigenous Knowledge Research Center with indigenous rice as a flagship project. 3) Nutrient management and varietal status as important components and appear to be the most problematic in the LSTD interventions, efforts on R&D are to be focused with IRC in Catanduanes. With the indigenous rice comeback in Catanduanes, the practice of kaingin with Hasok poses serious threat. 4. The economics of IRC cultivation in Catanduanes was found to be the most important statement based on farmers narratives. It is therefore imperative to provide empirical data as to the use of IRC in rice production by placing some economic valuation on the costs of conserving the genetic resource, production of highly nutritive IRCs and organic farming production with IRCs. More programs and studies are needed to improve the indigenous rice farming industry, and to open diversified livelihoods for the indigenous rice farmers through microfinancing.

BIBLIOGRAPHY (For Revision) Akinwale MG, GF Nwilene, BO Akinyele, SA Ogunbayo, AC Odiyi, A Shittu. 2011. Comparative performance of lowland hybrids and inbred rice varieties in Nigeria. International Journal of Plant Breeding and Genetics, 5(3)224-234. Altieri M A, Merrick L C. 1987. In situ conservation of crop genetic resources through maintenance of traditional farming system. Economic Botany, 41: 86-96. Anacleto MR, J Morales, K Manansala, MC Cardenas, A Caeda, M Senger, LH Barboza, M Corina Habito, G McLaren, A Portugal, JC Alarcon, R Bruskiewich, R Sackville Hamilton and Chengzhi Liang. 2010. The International Rice Information System Web site: integrated germplasm browser and Study Mart. Presented at the 28th International Rice

26

Research Conference, 8-12 November 2010, Hanoi, Vietnam OP05: Information, Dissemination, and Innovation. Asch F, Michael Dingkuhn, Abdoulaye Sow, Alain Audebert. 2005. Drought-induced changes in rooting patterns and assimilate partitioning between root and shoot in upland rice. Field Crops Research, 93(2-3): 223-236. Banaguas, G. 2010. Tropical Cyclones Risk Assessment and Management using Monte Carlo and DPSIR Models. Proceedings in the International Disaster and Risk Conference (IDRC), Davos, Switzerland. Barry M B, Pham J L, Courtois B, Billot C, Ahmadi N. 2007. Rice genetic diversity at farm and village levels and genetic structure of local varieties reveal need for in situ conservation. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 54, 1675-1690. Bengwayan M. 2010. Indigenous People's Traditional Rice Varieties Making a Comeback. KASAMA, Vol. 24 No. 3 / July-August-September 2010 / Solidarity Philippines Australia Network. Chanthakhone Boualaphanha, Mariafe Calingaciona, Rosa Paula Cuevasa,Darunee Jothityangkoon, Jirawat Sanitchonb, Melissa Fitzgerald. 2011. Yield and quality of traditional and improved Lao varieties of rice. ScienceAsia, 37: 8997. Brush S B. 1995. In situ conservation of landraces in centers of crop diversity. Crop Science, 35, 346-354. Bautista EU, EF Javier. 2005. The Evolution of Rice Production Practices. The Philippine Institute Of Development Studies DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES NO. 2005-14. Bhat Upadya VG, R. S. Bhat, V. V. Shenoy and P. M. Salomath.2008. Physico-Chemical Characterization of Popping - Special Rice Accessions. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Science., 21(2):184-186. Chandramohanan, K.T.,Mohanan, K.V. 2012. Kaipad rice farming in North Kerala-An indigenous saline resistant organic farming system. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 11(1), January: 185-189. Dhillon B S, Dua R P, Brahmi P, Bisht I S. 2004. On-farm conservation of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Current Science, 87:557-559. Farooq M, Kadambot H.M. Siddique, H. Rehman, T. Aziz, Dong-Jin Lee, A. Wahid.2011. Rice direct seeding: Experiences, challenges and opportunities. Soil and Tillage Research, 111 (2): 87-98. Fischer et al., 2009 R.A. Fischer, D. Byerlee and G.O. Edmeades, Can technology deliver on the yield challenge to 2050?, Expert Meeting on How to Feed the World in 2050FAO, Rome. Florence Lasalita- Zapico, Janmichaelben G. Miranda, & Michelle I. Pare. 2008. Physiological characterization for drought tolerance of selected rice varieties in Lake Sebu, Philippines. USM R & D J, 16 (1):13-16. Frei M, P. Siddhuraju, K. Becker. 2003. Studies on the in vitro starch digestibility and the glycemic index of six different indigenous rice cultivars from the Philippines. Food Chemistry, 83:395402. Gregorio GB , , D. Senadhira, R.D. Mendoza, N.L. Manigbas, J.P. Roxas, C.Q. Guerta. 2002. Progress in breeding for salinity tolerance and associated abiotic stresses in rice. Field Crops Research, 76(2-3): 91-101 Issue on Improving Tolerance to Abiotic Sresses in Rainfed Lowland Rice. Hanson J. 1985. Practical Manuals for Genebanks: Procedures for handling seeds in genebanks. IBPGR, Rome, Italy. HTML version available from:
27

http://www2.bioversityinternational.org/publications/Web_version/188/. Date accessed: 10 June 2010. Jezussek Magnus, Bienvenido O. Juliano, and Peter Schieberle. 2005. Comparison of Key Aroma Compounds in Cooked Brown Rice Varieties Based on Aroma Extract Dilution Analyses. J. Agric. Food Chem., 2002, 50 (5), pp 11011105. von Essen Liesa-Marlena, Sebastian C.A. Ferse, Marion Glaser & Andreas Kunzmann. 2013, in press. Attitudes and perceptions of villagers towards community-based mariculture in Minahasa, North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Ocean & Coastal Management Elsevier, Europe. Manuscript Number: OCMA-D-12-00220 Kemper, E.A., Stringfield, S., Teddlie, C., 2003. Mixed Methods Sampling Strategies in Social Science Research, in: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds.) 2003. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Sage Publications, pp. 273-296. PDF copy courtesy of Dr. JT Masagca. Koohanfkan P, Furtado J. 2004. Traditional rice-fish systems as globally indigenous agricultural heritage systems (GIAHS). International Rice Commission Newsletter, 53, 66-74. Kumar S, Bisht I S, Bhat K V. 2010. Population structure of rice (Oryza sativa) landraces under farmer management. Annals of Applied Biology, 156, 137-146. Laborte A, Kees (C.A.J.M.) de Bie, Eric M.A. Smaling, Piedad F. Moya, Anita A. Boling, Martin K. Van Ittersum.2012. Rice yields and yield gaps in Southeast Asia: Past trends and future outlook. European Journal of Agronomy, 36 (1): 9-20. Magcale-Macandog D, Ocampo LJM. 2005. Indigenous strategies of sustainable farming systems in the highlands of northern Philippines. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. Volume 26, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 117-138. Maredia MK David A. Raitzer.2012. Review and analysis of documented patterns of agricultural research impacts in Southeast Asia. Agricultural Systems 106 (2012) 4658. Masagca, JT et al. 2013. Indigenous rice comeback in Catanduanes, Philippines: Maximizing involvement of local rice farmers, women and university students (youth) for developing bio-techno guides in LSTD. A paper meant for presentation in the World Conference on Indigenous Cultures, Darwin, Australia. 2013. Moukoumbi YD, M Si, R Vodouhe, B Ndri, B Toulou, SA Ogunbayo, A Ahanchede. 2011. Assessing phenotypic diversity of interspecific rice varieties using agro-morphological characterization. Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science Vol. 3(5): 74-86, (May). Nuruzzaman M, Yamamoto Y, Yoshida T, Nitta Y, Miyazaki A.2000. Characterization of Indica and Japonica Rice Varieties Based on Improved Plant Type Index. Japanese Journal of Tropical Agriculture, 44(2):77-86. Orbon CA.2010. Evaluation of drought-tolerant rices in the rainded areas of Bicol (Philippines). Presented at the 28th International Rice Research Conference, 8-12 November 2010, Hanoi, Vietnam OP05: Information, Dissemination, and Innovation. Orbon, Corazon A.2010b.PERFORMANCE OF PSB RC 68 AND SWARNA SUB-1 IN FLOOD-PRONE AREAS IN BICOL (PHILIPPINES) Presented at the 28th International Rice Research Conference, 8-12 November 2010, Hanoi, Vietnam OP05: Information, Dissemination, and Innovation. Pascual JV, Bumatay EL.2012. Farmers' experiences with the use of location-specific technologies in cabanatuan city, Nueva ecija, Philippines. Asia Life Sciences, 21(1):299315.

28

Pena, E.DC. 1991. Supervised farming project of Catanduanes [Philippines] Agricultural and Industrial College and information sources of lowland rice farmers. University of the Philippines at Los Banos. Retrieved March 27, 2012. Available at AGRIS website thru http://www.uplb.edu.ph/ Rao NK, Jackson MT. 1996a. Seed longevity of rice cultivars and strategies for their conservation in genebanks. Annals of Botany 77:251260. Ravi, U., Menon, L.,Gomathy, G.,Parimala, C.,Rajeshwari, R. 2012. Quality analysis of indigenous organic Asian Indian rice variety- Salem Samba. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, Volume 11, Issue 1, January 2012, Pages 114-122. Reyes AA, Garcia ZA, Poso TR, Alcazar M, Banaguas G. 2010. The risk analysis of climate variability on the rice production in Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija. BIOME1 ProceedingsJournal of Biodiversity, Climate Change & Sustainable Development, 1(1): 36-42. Romero GO, RC Rabara, EB Gergon, MCV Newingham, CL Diaz, MC Ferrer, and ES Nazareno. 2011.Development and utilization of the PhilRice Genebank. Philippine Science Letters, 4(1):24-31. Santos, N.V.; Morales, M.I. 1998. Upland rice varieties in Catanduanes [Philippines]. Philippine Journal of Crop Science. Annual Scientific Conference of the Federation of Crop Science Societies of the Philippines, Cebu City (Philippines), 19-24 Apr 1998. (Abstract only) Retrieved March 27, 2012. Available at AGRIS website thru http://www.uplb.edu.ph/ Tin H Q, Berg T, Bjrnstad . 2001. Diversity and adaptation in rice varieties under static (ex situ) and dynamic (in situ) management. Euphytica, 122, 491-502. Tutanes G.A.; Garcia, A.G.; Vega, R.S.A Time of planting rainfed lowland rice after green manure incorporation by Tutanes,. (Catanduanes Agricultural and Industrial Coll., Panganiban, Catanduanes. (Abstract only). (Abstract only) Retrieved March 27, 2012. Available at AGRIS website thru http://www.uplb.edu.ph/ Venuprasad R, SM Impa, RP Veeresh Gowda, GN Atlin, R Serraj.2011. Rice near-isogenic-lines (NILs) contrasting for grain yield under lowland drought stress. Field Crops Research, 123 (2011) 3846. Xie Jian, WU Xue, Tang Jian-jun, Zhang Jia-en, Luo Shi-ming and Chen Xi. 2011. Conservation of Traditional Rice Varieties in a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS): Rice-Fish Co-Culture. Agricultural Sciences in China, 10(5): 754-761. Zhu Y Y, Wang Y Y, Chen H R, Lu B R. 2003. Conserving traditional rice varieties through management for crop diversity. Bioscience, 53, 158-162.

29