Tracking Improved Varieties in South Asia

Expert opinion: an alternative method of estimating varietal adoption

TRIVSA

Development of improved varieties (MVs)

Green revolution in the 70s in Asia

Rapid increase in food production

Decline in poverty• Directly, through increases in farmers’ incomes• Through a long-term decline in the prices of foodgrains

The decreasing growth in research funds resulted to a stagnation in crop genetic improvement.

• The magnitude of adopted area is an important determinant in the size of economic benefits in ex-post impact assessments of agricultural technologies.

• However, information on recent vintages of improved varieties replacing earlier vintages, the sources of seeds and varietal information, and rate of seed replacement are important but are limited if not unavailable.

• There is a need to know what is happening to varietal change as a result of crop improvement.

Need for information

• Information on the uptake and impact of new varieties is valuable for donors in maintaining and even increasing investment in genetic research.

• Information on the nature of dynamism in varietal adoption and turn-over are important for allocating scarce research resources to aspects that are likely to increase impact.

• Information on the adoption and cultivar use helps in deciding on relative resource allocation for commodities and specific lines of research.

Value of information

Aim

Lay the groundwork for tracking the successes and failures of crop improvement investments and for understanding the impact of those investments on

poverty, nutrition and food security

Construction of a routine system of monitoring varietal adoption

Objective 1: Attain a wider understanding of key aspects of theperformance of crop genetic improvement in South Asia

Activity 1: Compile varietal releases upto 2010

Objectives

Activity 2: Conduct survey on rice scientists’ time allocation in genetic improvement

Activity 3: Piloting a method of obtaining “quick and clean” estimates of varietal adoption through expert elicitation

Objective 2: Gain a deeper understanding of the adoption anddiffusion of new varieties

Activity 4: Conduct focus group discussions on varietal adoption at community level

Activity 5: Conduct farm household survey on varietal adoption

IRRI ICRISAT

Rice Sorghum, Pearl millet, Chickpea, Pigeon pea,

GroundnutIndia

Bangladesh India

Nepal

Sri Lanka

Bhutan

Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, Odisha

NARES

India

Chhattisgarh- Indira Gandhi Agricultural University

West Bengal - NZFDO – NGO

Odisha - Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology

Bangladesh - Bangladesh Rice Research Institute

Nepal

Western - Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science

Eastern - Nepal Agricultural Research Council

Sri Lanka - Department of Agriculture

Bhutan - Ministry of Agriculture

 Country/State Area(000 ha)

Prod(000 t)

Yield(t/ha)

India 42862 143970 3.36

Chhattisgarh 3703 9239 2.50

West Bengal 4944 19569 3.96

Odisha 4226 10242 2.42

Bangladesh 11700 47555 4.06

Nepal 1560 4354 2.79

Sri Lanka 1117 3662 3.28

Bhutan 23 72 3.14

Source: USDA, FAO for Bhutan, Indiastat.com for India

Rice area, production and yield, 2010

Varietal releases

Country/State Period No. of varieties No. of varieties/year

India-DRR 1933-2010 1004 12.9

Chhattisgarh 1996-2010 15 1.0

West Bengal 1969-2007 120 2.9

Odisha 1968-2010 144 3.3

Bangladesh 1966-2010 72 1.6

Nepal 1966-2010 62 1.4

Sri Lanka 1958-2010 69 1.3

Bhutan 1988-2010 24 1.0

Source of varieties released(Percentage of varieties)

 Source Bangladesh Nepal Bhutan Sri Lanka

Developed locally 74 27 29 100

South Asia 1 24 29  

India (1) (18) (8)  

Bangladesh   (2) (4)  

Nepal     (13)  

Sri Lanka   (5) (4)  

Southeast Asia 1 7 4  

Indonesia   (3) (4)  

Malaysia (1) (2)    

Philippines   (2)    

East Asia 1 9 12  

China (1) (3) (4)  

Japan     (4)  

RDA, Korea     (4)  

Taiwan   (6)    

IRRI 22 32 25  

Total no. of varieties 72 62 24 69

IRRI materials in varietal releases

 

No. of releases

Percentage of varieties

With IRRI material

IRRI release

With 1IRRI

parent

With both IRRI

parents 

India-DRR 1004 33 4 26 3

Bangladesh 72 54 22 33 15

Nepal 62 47 32 31 6

Sri Lanka 69 19 0 19 0

Bhutan 24 50 25 38 8

Varietal type % Area

Traditional/Local

Modern/Improved/Hybrid

Total100%

Top 10 modern varieties (List varieties based on sown area in descending order)

% Area

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11. Other modern varieties

Total100%

Expert Estimates of Varietal Adoption

Name:___________________Affiliation:___________________Perceptions of the relative importance of modern rice varieties in 2010.

1. Individual estimates from each expert

2. Revised individual estimates after a listof varietal releases is provided

3. Initial group estimates after experts are grouped into heterogeneous groups

4. Estimates by agro-ecology from each group

5. Revised group estimates after considering Step 4

6. Consensus group estimate

6-Step process of elicitation

A. The facilitator• Balance participation among panel members especially

when senior experts begin to dominate the discussion.• Assist the group in resolving differences among panel

members in the event that a consensus cannot be reached.

B. Composition of the expert panel• Breeders• Socio-economists• Agricultural extension officers• Seed/Grain traders• Seed producers• Farmer group representatives

Success of the elicitation process

 National/State

LevelDistrictLevel

Chhattisgarh

West Bengal

Odisha

Bangladesh

Nepal

Sri Lanka

Bhutan

Expert elicitation

Validation of expert estimates

Community survey: To obtain background information on varietal adoption and disadoption and to counter check results of household survey

Household survey: To obtain information on varietal adoption for use in validating results of expert elicitation and collect information on adoption patterns at the farm level

No. ofdistricts

No. ofblocks

No. ofvillages

Chhattisgarh 8 19 78

West Bengal 17 34 126

Odisha 29 158 302

Bangladesh 18 53 53

Nepal 29 68 116

 No. of

districtsNo. ofblocks

No. ofvillages

No. offarmers

Chhattisgarh 8 19 120 902

West Bengal 17 34 126 1262

Odisha 29 159 307 3139

Bangladesh 18 53 61 522

Nepal 29 174 265 1160

Bhutan 8 40 154 301

Community survey

Household survey

Survey sample

Sampling scheme

2-6 blocks/district

1-6 villages/block

2-10 HHs/village

675

7286

Results of the expert elicitation process

Comparison of area grown to all MVs

Overall, estimates correspond well within 10percentage-ptsover- and under-estimation.

Chhattisgarh

West

Bengal

Odish

a

Bangladesh

Nepal

Sri Lanka

Bhutan

0

20

40

60

80

100

Expert elicitation Household survey

MAE – Mean Absolute Error (percentage points)

Good correspondence is observed in the estimates between the 2 methods.

Comparison of cultivar-specific adoption estimatesExpert elicitation vs Household survey

   MAE(percentage-pts)

Correlationcoefficient 

Chhattisgarh 2.34 0.98

West Bengal 5.39 0.80

Orissa 1.33 0.97

Bangladesh 2.37 0.98

Nepal 3.87 0.77

Sri Lanka 0.76 0.99

Bhutan 3.64 0.90

VarietyShare in MV area (%) SMAPE (%)

EE HH (EE vs HH)

Swarna 32 31 10

Pooja 10 14 25

MTU 1001 9 10 18

Lalat 12 8 23

Pratikshya 4 4 36

Khandagiri 5 4 52

MTU 1010 3 4 71

Gayatri 2 2 66

Savithri 4 1 57

Naveen 2 1 64

Moti 1 1 70

CR 1030 0.3 1 94

Parijat 1 1 90

Samba Mahsuri 1 0.5 82

Swarna Sub1 0.1 0.3 94

T 141 2 0.1 99

Kalinga III 0.4 0.01 99

Other MVs 12 17 22

Comparison of estimates by variety across experts - Odisha

Widely-grown MVs have lesser margin of error than MVs grown in smaller areas.

Variety State of releaseCultivar-specific adoption estimates

EE HH

MTU 1001 Andhra Pradesh 23 29

Swarna Andhra Pradesh 16 20

MTU 1010 Andhra Pradesh 0 6

Samba Mahsuri Andhra Pradesh 0 1

Sona Mahsuri Andhra Pradesh 0 2

IR 64 CVRC 9 5

IR 36 CVRC 4 8

PA 6444 CVRC 0 3

PKV HMT Maharashtra 1 3

Mahamaya Chhattisgarh 15 10

Karma Mahsuri Chhattisgarh 4 1

Poornima Chhattisgarh 3 0

Danteshwari Chhattisgarh 2 0

Adoption estimates by state of release in Chhattisgarh

Experts tend to be biased upwards in favor of MVs developed locally.

MV adoption by agro-ecologyShare of all MVs in total rice area (%)

Upland MediumlandMedium lowland

Lowland

Chhattisgarh 83 97 98 98

West Bengal 100 95 81 45

Odisha 62 93 85 18

UplandRainfed lowland

Irrigated lowland

Nepal 87 77 81

Aman Boro Aus  

 Bangladesh 83 99 91  

High-altitude Mid-altitude Low-altitude

 Bhutan 84 19 46

Popular MVs by agro-ecologyUpland Mediumland Medium lowland Lowland

Chhattisgarh MTU 1010 MTU 1010 MTU 1010 MTU 1010  Swarna Swarna Swarna SwarnaWest Bengal Lalat Swarna Swarna Jaya      Shankar Pooja      Sabita  Odisha Khandagiri Swarna Swarna Varshadhan      Pooja Hanseswari        Durga

Upland Rainfed lowland Irrigated lowlandNepal Kanchhi Masuli Masuli Sona Mahsuri

Masuli Radha 4 MasuliHardinath 1 Sabitri

Ghaiya 2

Aman Boro Aus   Bangladesh Swarna BRRI dhan 28 BRRI dhan 28    BR 11 BRRI dhan 29 BR 26  

High altitude Mid altitude Low altitude Bhutan Khangma Maap IR 64 BR 153  Yusi Ray Maap 1 Sorbang IR 8  No 11 Bhur Raykaap 1

These complexities

must be considered

when conducting

expert elicitation.

An

gu

l

Ba

laso

re

Ba

rag

arh

Bh

ad

rak

Bo

lan

gir

Cu

ttack

De

og

arh

Dh

en

kan

al

Ga

jap

ati

Ga

nja

m

Jag

ats

ing

hp

ur

Jajp

ur

Jha

rsu

gu

da

Ka

lah

an

di

Ph

ula

ba

ni

Ke

nd

rap

ara

Ke

on

jha

r

Kh

urd

a

Ko

rap

ut

Ma

lka

ng

iri

Ma

yurb

ha

nj

Na

wa

pa

ra

Na

wa

ran

gp

ur

Na

yag

arh

Pu

ri

Ra

yag

ad

a

Sa

mb

alp

ur

So

ne

pu

r

Su

nd

arg

arh

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sh

are

of

MV

s in

ric

e a

rea

(%

)Spatial variability in MV adoption across districts in Odisha

Spatial variability can be captured by conducting elicitations at the sub-national level.

%MV area(EE – HH)

Cultivar-specific adoption

MAE(percentage-

pts)

SMAPE(%)

Correlation coefficient

Odisha

State-level -2 1.2 17 0.99

District-level 3 1.3 6 0.97

Chhattisgarh

State-level -9 3.3 37 0.93

District-level -8 2.2 25 0.96

Comparison of expert elicitationState-level vs District-level

Minimal gains in correspondence is observed in district-level expert elicitation.

Results of elicitation process

• There is close correspondence between expert estimates and household survey estimates on area grown to all MVs.

• Cultivar-specific estimates provided by experts closely match those from the household survey.

• Experts were able to provide reliable estimates of area under dominant varieties.

• Panel composed of experts with diverse backgrounds is essential for reducing systematic bias in the estimates.

• In areas with high environment variability, it is important to conduct expert elicitation at the district level.

• Estimates obtained through national-level elicitations are consistent with district-level elicitations provided resource persons with adequate expertise are selected in the panel.

Patterns in varietal adoption

Country/State Average

varietal age(years)

Averageadoption lag

(years)

Chhattisgarh 19 14

West Bengal 22 15

Odisha 20 12

Bangladesh 19 12

Nepal 23 16

Sri Lanka 14

Bhutan 14 7

Varietal turnover

Adoption lag is the age of the variety when it was first adopted by farmers.

Is the low varietal turnover a result of problems with the seed systemand information dissemination?

Chhattisgarh

West

Bengal

Odish

a

Bangladesh

Nepal

Sri Lanka

Bhutan

0

20

40

60

80

100

unknowns

2000-2010

1980-1999

Before 1980

%M

V a

rea

Proportion of MV area by year of release

Less than 20% of MV area is grown to MVs released in 2000 and after.

2-3 MVs account for a large area under MVs most of which are more than 10 years old.

 Year of release

% of MV area

 Year of release

% of MV area

Chhattisgarh   67  Bangladesh   55 

MTU 1010 2000 29 BRRI dhan 28 1994 20

Swarna 1979 20 BRRI dhan 29 1994 14

Mahamaya 1996 10 BR 11 1980 13

IR 36 1981 8 Swarna 1979  8

West Bengal 52  Nepal  52

Swarna 1979 34 Sona Mahsuri 1982 13

Gontra Bidhan-1 2008 7 Radha 4 1994 12

Lalat 1989 6 Masuli 1973 11

MTU 1010 2000 5 Kanchhi Masuli 9

Odisha 63 Hardinath 1 2004 7

Swarna 1979 31 Sri Lanka 57

Pooja 1999 14 Bg 352 1992 18

MTU 1001 1995 10 Bg 300 1987 15

Lalat 1989 8 Bg 358 1999 14

Bg 94-1 1975 10

Bhutan 588

BR 153 1989 27

Khangma Maap 1999 14

Yusi Ray Maap 1 2002 9

IR 64 1988 8

No 11 1989 8

Top 4 popular MVs

Disadopted MVs and Replacement varieties

27 17 29 18 27 19 34 19 26 24 Varietal age

CH WB OD Bang Nepal

Dis M

Vs

Rep

var

Dis M

Vs

Rep

var

Dis M

Vs

Rep

var

Dis M

Vs

Rep

var

Dis M

Vs

Rep

var0

20

40

60

80

100

UnknownFallowTV2000-20101980-1999Before 1980

%Fr

eque

ncy

of v

arie

ties

% of farmers 58

%Area grown to Swarna 42

No. of varieties grown 3

Average varietal age (years)

Swarna 31

Other MVs 17Average adoption lag (years)

Swarna 20

Other MVs 9

Varietal adoption of Swarna growers in Odisha

Mega varieties are not grown in large areas by few farmers butare grown in a substantial portion of the farm by many farmers with

other varieties in between fields.

Tracking varietal change: the case of Odisha

HarvestPlus survey in 2008

Farm practices in 2007

6447 households

TRIVSA survey in 2011

Farm practices in 2010

3139 households

Year of release

Varietalage

Share in MV area (%)

2007 2010

Swarna 1979 31 41 31

Lalat 1988 22 10 8

Khandagiri 1992 18 4 4

Gayatri 1988 22 4 2

Savithri 1982 28 2 1

24 60 47

Pooja 1999 11 9 14

MTU 1010 1995 15 6 10

MTU 1001 2000 10 2 4

Sarala 2000 10 1 2

Pratikshya 2005 5 0 4

Naveen 2005 5 0 1

9 18 35

Hybrids 2000s 0.5 0.8

Other MVs 21 18

Varietal change, 2007 and 2010 in Odisha

• 2-3 dominant varieties cover large areas under MVs.

• Old MVs dominate with <20% of MV area grown to MVs released in 2000-2010.

• Farmers adopt new MVs more than 10years after its official release.

• Mega varieties are not grown in large areas by few farmers but are grown in a substantial portion of the farm by many farmers.

Characteristics of varietal adoption

Summary and Conclusions

• Expert elicitation is an effective tool for a quick assessment of cultivar-specific adoption.

• Community interviews is a cost-efficient method for specific case studies of adoption/disadoption and is useful in providing information needed for cross-checking of household survey.

• Widely-adopted MVs are generally those released in 1980-1999 with limited adoption of newly-released varieties.

• Regularly assessing varietal adoption every 3-5 years through expert elicitation will be useful in tracking varietal change.