1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
Impact Analysis of Organic Farming in Rice Agroecosystems in the
Philippines*
Teodoro C. Mendoza, Ph.D.1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, U.P.
Los Baños, College, Laguna, Philippines
(Tel. No. 63-049-5362466; email: tcm@mudspring.uplb.edu.ph )
Keywords: organic farming, conventional farming, LEISA, farm household, labor utilization, financial
analysis, energy use, rice paddy
Abstract
Organic rice farming relieved the farm household from actual and psychological
burden of the high-cash capital expense requirement of conventional agrochemical
dependent rice farming. This was especially felt by women who are in-charge of family
finances. Organic rice farming had enhanced the relationships of husband and wife
including their children. Husband and wife partnership in farming with the help of their
children enabled them to cope with the increased labor requirement of organic farming.
As children became more environmentally conscious, they willingly helped their parents
in hand weeding and picking-up golden snails, which would otherwise, had required
herbicides and molluscides spraying.
Environmentally and health conscious farmers had become not only more caring to
their families but they were also more socially responsible. Organic rice farmers were
more active in the vi leaders and members of their organization or cooperative. All
organic rice farmers interviewed and who participated in the study were members of
farmers organization and/or cooperative while only few conventional farmers were
members of farmers organization.
Organic farming improved the soil condition. The paddy soil were loose and had
deeper mud depth which was attributed to the higher soil organic matter (SOM)
accumulating as a result of crop residue recycling and animal manure (or compost)
application. Loose and deeper mud led to easier and faster land preparation (26 hrs in CF
while 16 hrs in OF) , and lesser weed growth which reduced the labor required in hand
weeding and time to do rotary weeding.
On the financial side, since the cash cost of production was 33% lower in the organic
farm , the net revenue per ha was higher (332 USD ha-1 and 290 USD in the
conventional farm) despite the slightly lower yields (3.25 t ha-1 ) in organic compared
with the yields obtained ( 3.52 t ha-1 ) in the conventional farms. The higher cash cost in
*
Paper presented during the 1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference on Asian Organic Agriculture held at Suwon and
Cheonan/Korea on November 12-15, 2002.
1
1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
the conventional farms was due mainly to the agrochemicals which accounted for 83.2%
of the cash cost (fertilizer, 65%; pesticides, 18.2%).
The fossil fuel based energy inputs (FFEI) in the organic farms was only 18.3% (546.0
Mcal ha-1) relative to the conventional farms (2,977.21 Mcal ha-1). Thus, fossil CO2
emission in the organic rice farms was also considerably low (0.17 kg per CO2 per kg
rice) while it was 0.84 kg CO2 per kg rice in the conventional farm. For every 1 cal of
fossil fuel energy used in the conventional farm, only 4 cal was produced while it was 19
cal in the organic farm. Organic farms were lesser energy consuming. One tonne of
paddy rice utilized only 170 of FFEI while 844 Mcal in the conventional farms.
The impact study had shown the socio-economic, energy-use and environmental
benefits of organic farming over conventional farming. Thus, national research and
extension program for its promotion and widespread adoption by rice farmers in the
country should be facilitated.
INTRODUCTION
Soil fertility decline, land degradation, pollution, pesticides residues lingering in the food
chain are the commonly noted environmental consequences of modern agrochemical
dependent or conventional agriculture. Loss of biodiversity (genetic, species) in major
agroecosystems as in rice agroecosystem has also been attributed to modern/conventional
farming (S. Chapin, et al, 1998; Reich, et al, 2001; Waide, et al, 1999). That conventional
farming had many unforseen negative environmental consequences is no longer debatable.
There are many studies which dates back as early as the publication of Rachel Carson book
titled "Silent Spring".
But even with the known negative consequences (on environment, health and financial
aspects) of modern agrochemical input dependent agriculture were known as early as the
1960's, it was still promoted and widely disseminated (Horstkotle-Wesseler, 1999). In the
Philippines, "Green Revolution" was aggressively promoted and expanded in the 70's and it
was adopted practically in all crops. Soon, farmers began to realize the ironies of high yield.
From there on, farmers and farmer-situation responsive individuals and professionals began to
look for alternative. Helping farmers in the early 1980's in search for alternative modern
farming was not easy. Modern agriculture has been associated to food security = political
stability. Any departure to modern agriculture was considered threat to food security =
political stability situation.
The situation is so precarious in the Philippines.Rice is a staple food to about 90% of
population supplying 70-80% of food caloric energy. Rice provides 16% to the GDP and it
employs about 40% the total labor force and 9 out of 10 farmers are rice farmers (Tolentino, et
al., 2000). Rice farming is basically a farm household activity involving the father, mother and
children. Hence, rice farming is more than a livelihood or income source. It is life in a rice
farming community.
2
1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
The technology, practices, systems being adopted by the farmers or they are made to adopt
automatically influence their lives happiness and well-being (Hosrtkotle-Wesseler, 1999).
Years had passed and many lessons have been learned. Many farmers had tried alternative
systems of farming. They pursued a more life fulfilling rice farming systems. This time, it is
agrochemical input independent. It is popularly called organic agriculture.
This study was conducted to determine the impacts of organic farming in rice
agroecosystems in t . The analysis dealt specifically on the farm household (husband and wife
and their children), labor utilization, farmers association, soil condition/rice paddy ecosystem,
comparative economics and energy use of organic rice production, LEISA, and conventional
rice farms.
METHODOLOGY
Description of Study Site
This impact study was conducted in the island of Mindoro (Fig. 1). The island of Mindoro
is divided into 2 provinces - Mindoro Occidental (Northern side) and Mindoro oriental
(Southern side). It was in the two (2) towns (Pinamalayan and Baco) of Oriental Mindoro
where the impact study was conducted, specifically in the 3 villages of Mayabig, Baco (Village
1), Biga, Pinamalayan (village 2) and Buli, Pinamalayan (Village 3). The main demographic
data for the 3 villages are summarized in Table 1.
3
1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
4
1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
Table 1. Demographic data for the 3 villages
Village
Features
Area: riceland
(ha) upland
Total
Population
1
Mayabig
2
Biga
3
Buli
196 (27)
210
107.0
381.5
*
*
433
488.5
*
1,278
879
1,210
No. of Household
(May, 2000)
249
144
246
Ave. Household members
5.13
6.10
5.32
*No data
The island of Mindoro has a hilly to mountainous terrain. The two provinces are separated
by a mountain range. This mountain range explains why Oriental Mindoro have no distinct dry
season (less than 200 mm mo-1) and it has very pronounced maximum rain period from
November to January in any given year. The northwest monsoon blows the wind towards
Oriental Mindoro. As the wind rises, it condenses and orographic precipitation takes place.
The leeward side of the mountain is Occidental Mindoro. It is dry and hot starting November
of any given year.
The mountainous and forested areas provides benefit to the lowlying flat areas as it serves as
watershed supplying plenty of water for irrigating the rice paddies. Alluvial deposits and silt
are also being carried downstream during heavy rainfall and flooding months. This may
explain why rice farming is the main livelihood and income source in the lowland villages.
Data Collection
A participatory approach in data collection was used in the impact analysis of organic rice
farming systems at Oriental Mindoro. Two (2) major tools in the data collection were used.
These were focus group discussion (FGD) and individual farmer interview (IFI). In the FGD,
the participants were asked specific to open-ended-questions. Farmers were requested to form
a group of at least 3 to discuss and provide answers to the questions given to them. Depending
on the number of attending farmers in the pre-arranged meeting , group members had reached
7 in some villages. At least 4 groups were formed for every village. Questions requested to be
answered for each group are listed in Annex 1. The groups were given at least one (1.0) hour
to discuss and answer the question. After their discussion, each group was requested to present
the output of their discussions.
5
1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
In the individual farmers interview (IFI), a prepared and pre-tested questionnaire was used.
The data/information asked during the interview are summarized in Annex 2. Of the 3 villages,
only one village (Bgy. Mayabig, Baco, Oriental Mindoro) had qualified from this portion of
the study based from the criteria described in Annex 3. Based from the criteria described in
Annex 3, only 6 farmers (as of December 2001) were classified as organic farmers.
Increasing number of farmers in the village were still in the transition stage. They still apply
moderate amount (2-3 bags) of chemical fertilizer and spray pesticides when the need arise.
The other farmers were on-trial stage wherein portion of their farm (most fertile site) were
already agro-chemicals free and the rest of their farms were still applied with moderate amount
of chemical fertilizer and pesticides. These farmers were classified as LEISA farmers (Low
External Input and Sustainable Agriculture) based on Reijntjes et al (1998). Seven (7) were
interviewed. The rest of the farmers (10 of them) were still applying high amount of chemical
fertilizer (7-12 bags) and were spraying herbicides, molluscides and insecticides.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Answers or data provided by the farmers in the FGD (especially for open-ended-questions)
were tallied on appropriate headings related to the main study - the impact analysis.
The data derived in the IFI had allowed us to do quantitative analysis (mainly financial and
energy use). This was the main reason why IFI was done. Suitable methods for financial
analyses were followed as in Mendoza (2002). For the energy analysis, the procedures and
technical coefficients were adopted from Pimentel, et al., 1981; Cox and Atkins, 1979; Kuether
and Duff, 1980, Soriano, 1982. These were also described in Mendoza (2002).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
During the focus group discussions (FGD), the farmers were requested to list the reasons
why they shifted to organic method of rice cultivation, the reasons they provided are
summarized below:















Due to lack of capital, they could not buy expensive fertilizer and pesticides
Children were sickly; they frequently had fever and stomach ache
Low income, inadequate rice for the family, obliged to sell rice to pay for the debts
To cut costs, to prevent further indebtedness
No loans to pay
After attending the seminar and learn organic farming, tested it in my farm
Am afraid, soil will be destroyed
Bad effects to human health
Lightens the job
After calamity, indebtedness deepens
Experimenting on new method
Many farmers are trying to convince me
Perceives that OA is a good method of farming
Tried OA, it's correct farming method
No herbicides, chemical fertilizer is required, cheap method of farming, evade expenses
6
1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
 Add new knowledge in farming
 Like to learn new techniques in farming that does not require chemical inputs
The farmers who continue to spray and use fertilizers were also asked during the individual
farmers interview (IFI). Their reasons are summarized below:








Spraying is necessary to kill weeds, insects and golden snails, they are too many.
To increase yield
Just following modern method of farming
Without pesticides, insects will destroy fully the crop
Positive effects are visible
There are too much unfilled grains if pesticides are not sprayed
Advised by the technician
If spraying pesticides is stopped, rice will be destroyed; they will not grow well
The reasons cited by the farmers why they shifted to organic rice production (OA) enabled
us to ask more specific questions on the impacts of organic rice production in 3 years* after
they abandoned conventional rice farming. The observed impacts of organic rice production as
enumerated by the farmers are listed in Box 1.
)
Box 1. Impacts of organic rice production as enumerated by farmers at Oriental Mindoro
A. Bgy. Mayabig, Baco

Conditions the soil, soil fertility improves, loosens the soil

Economical, savings allowed us to raise pigs, costs of production decreased

Free from indebtedness

Children are no longer sickly; they are healthier; confident that the food that we eat
are chemical-free

Organic rice stores longer after cooking, it does not spoil even after 2 days

Fish (tilapia, dalag) and frogs are re-appearing.

Stopped using pesticides; it was effective, yileds are hig

Many friendly insects are taking good care of plants

Spreading rice straw, instead of burning, saves fertilizer

Rice plants are not susceptible to pests, have sturdy growth, good grain quality
B. Bgy. Buli, Pinamalayan

Reduced costs

Reduced labor

Reduced indebtedness

Maintains soil fertility

Learn to care and protect nature

Good for human health
C. Bgy. Biga, Pinamalayan

Reduced costs, less expensive farming

No need to borrow money

Pro-environment

Satisfy the needs of the family for adequate foods

Better eating quality

More resistant to pests and lodging

Improves soil conditions
Why 3 years? We used 3 years as the start of reckoning time whether organic rice production have positive impacts or not. This is related to
the common observation that it takes 3 years to recover and condition the soil (restore soil fertility) after it was subjected to intensive use of
chemicals in the conventional farming
7
1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
The impacts of organic rice production as enumerated by the farmers are then analyzed and
grouped under common headings as shown in Fig. 2,. The various impacts were interrelated.
In the succeeding discussions, however, the order of topics are as follows:
 farm household





husband and wife
health and nutrition of the family
children
Farmers Organization/Community
Labor Utilization
 Soil condition/rice paddy ecosystems
 Financial
 Energy use/fossil CO2 emission
Impact on the Farm Household
Small scale farming as in rice farms (farm size ranges 0.5-3.0) are done by the farm
household. Thus , it is simply logical to start analyzing the impacts at the farm household.
Typical characteristics of small-scale resource limited family farms is that the farm is both the
home and the major livelihood source (Hildebrand, 1981; Mendoza, 1985). Any major
decision made should be assessed in terms of its effect on the farm household - the
husband and wife, and the children. The well-being of the family, particularly the
health status of the family is very important. It is a statement frequently heard among rural
families, "We might be poor. This is alright for as long s nobody from our family gets sick, if
we are all healthy, we are already happy." Because of resource limitation, health care and
modern medication is known to be beyond the reach of small scale farmers. Because of this ,
they treasure much the health of every family member especially the young. As revealed by
the farmers during FGD and IFI, the reasons and benefits that has accrued from organic rice
farming at the farm household level are as follows:
On husband and wife. There was enhanced relationships among husband and wife as they
jointly do farming. As the farmer-husband developed more consciousness and awareness on
the need to care for the environment, they become more caring (loving) as well for their family
and their children. Organic rice farmers abandoned their vices (excessive drinking,
gambling).As women are the ones in-charge of family expenses, they are relieved
tremendously from the burden on where to negotiate loans to buy agrochemicals every
cropping season. Incidentally the start of cropping season is also the start of school registration.
The less capital required (33%) in organic production (46 USD/ha) had relieved the farm
household from the actual and psychological burden of the high cash capital expense
requirement due to the agrochemical dependent conventional rice farming.
8
1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
This is especially relevant in the advent of flood and strong typhoons (18-22 typhoons occur
every year). When a calamity occurs, organic rice farming saves the family from further
indebtedness due to their previous loans. Where to get money to buy food under extreme crop
failure becomes a huge survival concern. Meanwhile, the interest expense of their loan
continue to accrue. Yet, they need to negotiate for another loan for the next crop establishment.
In general, it takes about 3-4 successful harvest to compensate for the losses incurred in
previous crop failure. Another calamity may occur again, though moderate, before having 3-4
successful harvest.
Farm Household
Farmer Organization/
Community
Organic Rice
Production
Soil Quality/
Rice Paddy Ecosystem
Labor Utilization
Resource Use
(Input/.Output)
Economics/Energy/Environment
Fig. 2. The interrelationships of the various impacts of organic rice production
9
1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
Children of organic rice farmers had become more environmentally conscious. As this
happened, they willingly help their parents in farming. They helped in hand weeding and in
operating the rotary weeder and in picking-up golden snails. More masculine boys even
helped in plowing, applying compost and operating the hand tractor. In so doing, the family
had saved cash in buying molluscides and herbicides, and in paying hired labor.
Impact on Labor Utilization
It has been the belief that organic farming in general and organic rice farming in particular is
more laborious than agrochemical dependent conventional rice farming. At a glance , this may
be correct. Table 2 shows the audit of labor utilization in conventional rice farming (CF) and
organic rice farming (OF). Organic rice farming was twice more labor intensive in terms of
nutrient management only (8 md vs. 3.5 md). This was due to the added labor incurred in
spreading rice straw (RS) (2.0 MD in OF vs. 0.5 MD for RS burning (CF). It should be
emphasized that the 2.0 md for RS spreading would be true only if RS was spread immediately
after threshing. If RS is not spread right away and rains come, spreading may need 7-8 mandays. Then, OF becomes excessively labor intensive. Preparing and applying manure was also
adding labor in the farm at 6.0 man-days (md). The rest of the labor was about the same.
Because of this, OF is about 3 md more labor intensive (39 md) than CF (36 md). But the
labor utilization should be examined as labor use was different between OF and CF.
 Land preparation required more hours (hr) in CF (26 hr) than in OF (16 hrs). Translated
in man-animal-day (mad) the 10 hrs difference translates to 2 mad less in the OF
 Application of agrochemicals (fertilizer and pesticides) is paid 1.5 times higher than
ordinary labor as in transplanting, weeding or picking of golden snails. As a result, the
aggregate labor (md) for agrochemical application increased from 8.5 md to 12.75 md (or
about 4.25 md increase)
As a result of this adjustments, the adjusted total mandays for CF was 52.25 md while it was
48.5 md in OF. OF was about 4 md less labor than CF. From this perspective, OF can be
more labor intensive depending on what operations (nutrient management) is involved. As
shown in the audit, CF is more labor intensive especially after the adjustments on labor cost
were made.
Impacts on Soil Quality/Rice Paddy Ecosystems
The qualitative answers given by the farmers related to the question or topic given to them
for discussion on the impacts of organic rice farming on soil quality or rice paddy ecosystems
in the 3 case study sites at Oriental Mindoro all pointed out to the improvement of soil fertility.
 Loosens the soil (Bgy. Mayalig)
 Improves soil condition (Bgy. Biga)
 Maintains soil fertility (Bgy. Buli)
10
1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
We tried analyzing what the farmers meant when they said improved soil condition? We
went to the field and tried digging the soil. As we found out in our earlier studies (Mendoza,
1991), rice soil in organic method of farming is not only loose but it has deeper mud (25-35 cm
in OF vs. 15-20 cm in CF). This deeper mud depth and loose soil features provided the reasons
why organic rice farms (OF) were easier and faster to prepare (16 hrs vs. 26 hrs in the CF)
which translated to lower costs in land preparation (2 mad equivalent or 10 USD ha-1).
11
1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
Table 2. Auditing of labor utilization in conventional rice farm (CF) and organic rice farm
(OF).
Basis of comparison
Conventional
Organic
Comments/
Remarks
1. Land Preparation
plowing
harrowing
)
)
20 hr (12)*
16 hr (10)*
0.5 md
2.0 md
0.5 md
2.0 md
- same - same -
2.0 md
2.0 md
12.0 md
2.0 md
2.0 md
12.0 md
- same - same - same -
0.5 md
2.0 md
-
2.0 md
RS is simply burnt
less labor
None in CF
-
4.0 md
None in CF
Reduce hr rate as
soil quality
improve
levelling
diking/levees
preparation
2. Seedling Preparation
Care of seedlings (aggregated)
3. Transplanting
4. Nutrient management
Spreading rice straw *(RS)
Applying manure/compost
Preparation/compostmaking (aggregated)
Chemical fertilizer
application
1st dose
2nd dose
3rd dose
Sub-Total
5. Pest Management
Golden Snail,
Spraying
Manual picking
Insecticide spraying
Herbicides spraying
Pre-emergent
Post-emergent
Manual weeding/replanting
Rotary weeding (RW)
Sub-Total
6.
7.
8.
None in OF
1.0 md
1.0 md
1.0 md
3.0 md (5.25)**
1.0 md
3.0 md (4.5)**
2.0 md (3.0)**
1.0 md
1.0 md
8.0 md
-
8.0 md
2.0 md
-
8.0 md
2.0 md
14.0 md
12.0 md
-
-
-
-
TOTAL
36 md
38.5 md
Total Adjusted Man-days
52.25 md
48.5 md
Field Monitoring
Irrigation
Harvesting/Threshing
*
None in OF
None in OF
-sameNo RW due to
herbicides
must be the same but OF
farmers spend extra time in
the field watching their crop
same arrangement as in CF
same, but rates are yield
dependent
Reason why plowing/harrowing are expressed in hr and not man-day (md) is because the use/rent of handtractor is paid by the hr of work.
Others are simply paid 1 man day (md) though the work could be finished in less than 1 day or 8 hr work. Data in parenthesis are the
equivalent md derived after expressing the amount paid and divided it into man-animal-day (mad) paid at P250/mad.
**
Adjusted md for chemical fertilizer and pesticides application 1.5 md was used as they are paid 1.5 times higher as in manual weeding
ordinary transplanting.
12
1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
As explained in our earlier study (Mendoza, 1991), the deeper mud depth and loose soil have
many interrelated benefits as summarized below:
 Deeper root penetration or rooting depth. This means that the roots could absorb more
nutrients in bigger soil volume as compared when the rooting depth is only 15-20 cm. It is
also related to drought tolerance of the rice crop. It was not specifically mentioned in the 3
villages as their rice farms are irrigated . But in rainfed areas, farmers have reported that
their rice plants are more drought tolerant in organic method of rice farming. This is
important when water for irrigation is pumped. OF means less fossil fuel energy use in
running the motorized irrigation pumps.
 Lesser weed infestation in organic rice farms. Many weed seeds in the rice paddy
germinate if exposed to light. With loose soil, they remain buried underneath. Thus,
except for the rhizomes or stem propagating weed species which are not dominant in the
rice paddy, seed propagated weed species find difficulties growing. This explains why
with time (at least 3 years) weed pressures, and hence, weeding costs also decreased in OF
while the continued use of herbicides lead to the development of resistance in weeds. Thus,
weed pressure was higher and the need for herbicides increase. Suppressing weed growth
is one major labor requirement in rice production. With good water management, some OF
farmers we interviewed are not even bothered about weeds as they are few. Supplemented
with prompt rotary and handweeding, weed growth were so minimal in their farms.
 Farmers were mentioning that there are "many friendly insects taking good care of rice
plants." This may explain why even without pesticides application, they do not suffer.
(Olanday, 1991) had reported that in the organic rice paddy , the population of beneficial
pests overwhelmed that of the destructive pests at 3:1 ratio. Moreover, the pupae of
destructive pests are mostly egg parasitized. Chaboussou (1981) claimed that since
pesticides are poison, they also poison (weaken) the plants. Organic rice plant as reported
by the farmers (Bgy. Mayalig) have sturdy growth (due to balanced nutrition). Hence, they
are not susceptible to pest. It is spraying insecticides and herbicides that made CF more
laborious (9.5 md) in the labor audit. On the part of farm workers, it is spraying pesticides
that they are aversed. If they can avoid it, or if they have other option, they will not do
spraying. They have also realized the dangers of spraying pesticides.
Furthermore, improvement in soil quality is related to the rice paddy ecosystem. Based from
Asian thinking "if there is water, there is fish". But with the use of agrochemicals, it was just a
thing of the past. It has been estimated earlier that more than half of the protein food in the
rural rice farming diet is obtained in the rice paddy (frogs, mudfish, tilapia, etc.). When the
farmers stopped using pesticides, gradually these creatures also started to re-appear. Farmers
in Oriental Mindoro are beginning to catch frogs and fish in their rice paddy. There is natural
aquaculture integration in rice paddy ecosystems through organic farming .
As a whole, the improvement in the rice paddy ecosystem had revealed its impact in the
farm families as well.
 fish and frogs re-appear contributing to farm families nutrition
13
1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
 the air they breath is once again fresh and pesticides-fume-free
 altogether, this help improve the nutrient and health status especially the children. As
they claimed when we interviewed them, they became healthier compared to those years
when their parents were using excessive agrochemicals in the field.
Impacts on Farmers Organization/Community
Organic rice farmers (in our case study sites) were member of farmers organization. Only 1
of the farmers we interviewed was not member of the organic rice farmers association but he
was an elected member of the village council. As the farmers become aware of environmental
issues, they become more concern about their community. Although physically handicapped,
one of the organic rice farmers we interviewed was so active in their organization and in the
community. He mentioned that, he was a loner before but he realized the need to join
organization so they could become more effective in convincing other farmers in their
community. The role of farmers organization (Mendoza, 2001) in disseminating/
institutionalizing organic agriculture is shown in Fig. 3.
While there may be others who would disagree, organized farmers could be the key in
promoting organic farming as enumerated below:
 Farmers, if organized, can better access technologies among R/D institution. Moreover,
they can influence R/D directions or thrusts in support of organic agriculture (OA)
 Farmers can seek better terms for credit/finance and in accessing support services for OA
 Farmers, as an organization can on their own organized marketing system supportive to
OA, i.e. Direct marketing from farmers-to-consumer groups. Eliminating the credittrading control from the trader and acting as money lender at the same time would provide
the farmers just price for their produce and fair price for the consumers.
 Farmers as an organization can influence policies, and as a mass movement could
accelerate the adoption of OA by the mainstream society.
Financial impact of Organic rice production
The procedure developed in the earlier report (Mendoza, 2002) was adopted in analyzing the
financial impacts of organic, LEISA and conventional farms. The results of financial analysis
are summarized in Table 3. At constant price of 160 USD tonne-1 of paddy rice (unmilled rice),
slightly higher gross revenue was obtained in the Conventional farms at 564.0 USD ha-1. This
was due to the slightly higher yields obtained (270 kg ha-1) over that of organic farm. But
because of the much higher cash cost in the conventional farm which is about 3.0 times (118
USD ÷ 39 USD = 3.0), the net revenue in the organic farm was the highest at 332 USD ha-1.
LEISA was at the middle at 304 USD ha-1 and conventional farms, the lowest at 290 USD ha-1.
Why cash costs was 3 times higher in conventional when compared with the organic farm?
Table 4 shows the costs component analysis in the conventional farm. Of the 273.10 USD ha-1
total cost, 118 USD ha-1 was the cash cost. What is interesting to note is that 83.2% of this
cash cost was due to agrochemical inputs [fertilizer (65%) and pesticides( 18%)]. The noncash costs are non-avoidable costs as they represent the share of those people who worked as
14
1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
well in the farm (transplanting, weeding and harvesting). The cash costs as in fertilizer and
pesticides are the ones that could be easily eliminated through organic farming.
At the farm household level, this financial attribute of organic rice farming is very important.
The capital scarcity of typical rice farming household and the risk-proneness of the
environment where rice farming is being done (collectively described as farming
circumstances) make organic rice farming a logical move among the early practitioners. As
they claimed, it is low cost and inexpensive farming approach. Further due to the little cash (39
USD ha-1) spent by the farmers in the organic farm , they earned the highest. For every dollar
spent in the rice field, the organic farmers got back 8.54 USD which is 3.5 times higher than
the conventional farms .
Technology accessing
evaluation, testing
(Tech. Localization)
(Tech Dissemination)
Credit/Financing
Support services accessing
Farmers
Organization
OA
Alternative Marketing System
(farmers  consumers)
Mass Movement
(Policy Advocacy)
Fig. 3. Role of Farmers Organization in Institutionalizing OA (Mendoza, 2001)
15
1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
Table 3. Comparative Financial Analysis of Organic, LEISA and Conventional Farms at Baco,
Oriental Mindoro, Philippines (Mendoza, 2002)
ITEM
ORGANIC
(Price Adjusted)
1. Gross Revenue (P)
LEISA
CONVENTIONAL
PHP
USD
PHP
USD
PHP
USD
PHP
USD
32,500
650.00
26,000
520.00
26,240
525.00
28,000
564.00
Yield (kg/ha)
3,250
2. Total Cost (P)
a.
b.
ORGANIC
Cash
Non-Cash
462.00
3,280
9,.399
188.00
11,024
220.50
13,564
271.30
1,943
7,456
39.00
149.10
3,720
7,304
74.40
146.10
5,894
7,760
118.00
155.20
16,601
332.00
15,216
304.00
14,546
290.00
3. Net Revenue (P)
23,100
4. Net Revenue/
Cash Expenses
11.88
8.54
4.09
5. Breakeven Yield
(kg/ha-1)
940
1,175
1,378
6. Cost to produce
1,000 tonne rice (P)
3,520
2,892
57.85
3,360
2.46
1,706
67.20
3,878
77.60
*Adjusted Price for Organic = 1.25 x P8.0 = P10/kg
PHP = Philippine Peso; USD = United States Dollar
1 USD = P50.00
1 tonne paddy rice = 160 USD
Source of Basic Data/procedure: Mendoza (2002)
It was intermediate in the LEISA (4.09 USD). Because the expense was the lowest in the
organic farm, the yield necessary to offset the cost of production (breakeven yield) was also the
lowest at 1,175 kg ha-1 and conversely, the highest breakeven yield was in the conventional
farm at 1,706 kg ha-1.
In the previous analysis, the price of paddy rice was computed to be the same for all farms at
160 USD tonne-1 (Mendoza, 2002). In reality, however, farmers were selling their paddy rice
20-30% higher than conventional paddy rice (farm gate). At an average of 25% higher price of
organic rice, the gross revenue increased also by 25% at 650 USD ha-1. With this price, gross
revenue in organic farm was already 15% higher than conventional farm. Because the cash
expense was small in the organic farm, the net revenue increased by almost 40% at 462 USD
ha-1. With this amount, net revenue of organic farm is about 60% higher than the conventional
farm. For every dollar spent, the farmer gets back about 12 dollar which is almost 5 times that
obtained in the conventional farm. Thus, organic rice farmers spent the least and earned the
highest.
Energy use impact
16
1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
In addition to the financial impacts of organic rice farming, its impact on resource use
particularly on the fossil fuel energy use was evaluated. The procedure used in the earlier
paper (Mendoza, 2002) was adopted. Agricultural crop production in simple terms is just like
an energy conversion system. It is an input-output system. About 83.22% of the cash cost of
production in the conventional rice farms (Table 4) was due to the use of agrochemical
(fertilizers and pesticides) inputs. Fertilizer and pesticides manufacture consume a lot of fossil
fuel energy (Cox and Atkins, 1979; Pimentel et al., 1980).
As shown in Table 5, conventional rice farm utilized 3.6 times (3,400.58 Mcal ha-1) more
energy than OF and about 2.0 times more than LEISA (1,712.0 Mcal ha-1). The reason is that
the fossil fuel energy based inputs (FFEI) was about 87.6% of the total energy used (TEI) and
of this 87.6%, 74% was chemical fertilizer and 5% for pesticides. It is important to highlight
that 70% of FFEI was nitrogen fertilizer. Some organic rice farmers were still utilizing
animals for land preparation so the 18% (546.01 Mcal ha-1) of FFEI could still be avoided.
Because of the high energy values of agrochemical inputs used in conventional rice
production, the energy efficiency (Ee) of this system of rice production was about 5 times
lower (Ee = 3.91) when compared with organic rice production (Ee = 19.42, Table 5a). As a
whole organic rice production was the most energy efficient among the 3 systems. About
11.18 Mcal of paddy rice was produced per 1 Mcal while it was only 3.42 Mcal in the
conventional and 6.26 Mcal in LEISA. Similarly, the energy required to produce a tonne of
paddy rice was lowest in both FFEI and TEI. It required only 170 Mcal (FFEI )to produce a
tonne of paddy rice or a total of 294 Mcal (TEI) in the organic farm. The energy (FFEI)
required to produce a tonne of paddy rice increased to 844 Mcal (FFEI ) or 960 Mcal (TEI) in
the conventional farm.
17
1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
Table 4. Cost component analysis in Conventional rice farm, Baco, Oriental Mindoro,
Philippines.
ITEM
AMOUNT
PERCENT
PHP
USD
13,654.00
273.10
100
Non-Cash Cost
7,760.00
155.20
57
Cash Cost
5,894.00
117.90
43
989.00
20.00
17
Agrochem
4,905.00
98.10
83.20
Fertilizer
3,822.00
76.50
64.80
Pesticides
1,083.00
21.70
18.40
Total Cost
Oil
PHP - Philippine Peso
USD - US dollar
1 USD = 50 PHP
18
100
1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
Table 5a. Auditing the energy usage in Organic, LEISA, and Conventional famrs at Baco,
Oriental Mindoro, Philippines.
INPUT
Organic
Unit
Mcal
LEISA
Unit
4.5 kg
46 li
4.5 kg
50 li
81.00
505.45
4.5 kg
52 li
45 kg
638.55
0.75
75.00
145
28
28
1.5
Mcal
Conventional
Unit
Mcal
%
1. Fossil-Fuel based
Energy Input
(FFEI)
Machinery
Fuel
Fertilizer
N
P
K
Pesticides
Total
81.00
465.01
546.01
1,300.00
81.00
529.88
2,216.48
2,057.55
86.69
72.24
149.85
2.7
17.8
74.0
70.0
2,977.21
100
2. Indirectly Fossil
Fuel Oil based
Energy
Labor
Seeds
534 hr
60 kg
162.00
240.00
566 hr
172.00
240.00
604 hr
60 kg
183.37
240.00
Total
402.00
412.00
423.37
Total Energy Input
(TEI)
948.10
1,712.00
3,400.58
Source of technical coefficient/procedure: Mendoza (2002)
19
5.0
1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
Table 5b. Energy efficiency (Ee) and energy intensity (Ei) and estimated fossil CO2 emission
per ha/per kg-rice from fossil energy based inputs in the 3 systems
ORGANIC
Rice Yield (RY)
3,214.00
11,632.50
LEISA
10,606.20
3,250.00
CONVENTIONAL
10,725.00
kg ha-1
• Energy Analysis
Energy Efficiency (Ee)
Ee (FFEI)
19.42
8.25
Ee (TEI)
11.18
6.26
Ei (FFEI)
170.00
400.00
Ei (TEI)
294.00
524.00
540.00
1,285.90
0.17
0.39
938.00
1,677.80
0.30
0.52
3.91
3.42
Energy Intensity
(Ei) (Mcal ton-1)
844.00
960.00
• Fossil CO2 emission
FFEI
kg-CO2 ha-1
2,944.50
kg-CO2 kg-1 rice
0.84
TEI
kg-CO2ha-1
3,332.70
kg-CO2kg-1 rice
0.95
FFEI - fossil fuel energy based input
TEI - total energy based input
Mcal - million calories
Technical Coefficients:
1 Li diesel oil = 10,110 kcal = 10 kg CO 2
1 L DOE = 2.7 C, 1 kg C = 3.7 CO 2
Source of technical coefficient/procedure: Mendoza (2002)
20
3,525.00
1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This impact analysis of organic rice farming systems was conducted in the 3 villages of the
island province of Mindoro Oriental, Philippines from November 2001 to February 2002.
Through focus group discussions (FGD) and individual farmer's interview (IFI) using pretested questionnaire, about 200 farmers participated in the study. Guide questions or topics
during the FGD were focused on how organic rice farming had influenced the farm household,
farmers organization, women, children, health and nutrition, rice paddy ecosystem. In the
individual farmers interview (IFI), more specific data on crop yields and costs items (labor,
production inputs, and cultural management practices) were asked. Data obtained during IFI
were used in the comparative evaluation of organic and conventional rice farming systems as
to financial soundness and energy usage.
At the farm household level, organic rice farming relieved the farm household from actual
and psychological burden of the high-cash capital expense requirement of conventional
agrochemical dependent rice farming. Organic rice farm cash expenditure was only 33%
(P1,943/ha) of the conventional rice farms (P5,894). This was especially felt by women who
are in-charge of family finances. Organic rice farming had enhanced the relationships of
husband and wife including their children. Husband and wife partnership in farming with the
help of their children enabled them to cope with the increased labor requirement of organic
farming. As children became more environmentally conscious, they willingly help their
parents in hand weeding and picking-up golden snails, which would otherwise, had required
herbicides and molluscides spraying. This has saved the family from further indebtedness after
each calamity especially typhoons and floods (18-20 typhoons passed Oriental Mindoro every
year).
Environmentally and health conscious farmers had become more family and socially
responsible. Their care for environment had made them more caring and concern for their
family especially the education of their children (they have less number of children and they
encourage their children to pursue higher education). In turn, their children persevere studying
despite difficulties in life. Also, organic rice farmers were more active in the village as they
become leaders and active members of their organization or cooperative. All organic rice
farmers interviewed and who participated in FGD's were members of farmers organization
and/or cooperative while only few conventional farmers were members of farmers organization.
As reported by all the organic rice farmers interviewed, their children became healthier
when they shifted to organic rice farming. This was attributed to the fresh air they breathe and
pesticides-free foods (rice and vegetables) they eat which are all grown in their farms.
Organic rice paddies required lesser time to prepare for transplanting rice. Land preparation
using hand tractor was reduced from 26 hrs to 16 hrs per ha. This was attributed to the loose
and deeper mud depth which in turn was attributed to the higher soil organic matter (SOM)
accumulating as a result of crop residue recycling and animal manure (or compost) application.
Loose and deeper mud, in turn, led to lesser weed growth, which reduced the labor required in
hand weeding and time to do rotary weeding.
21
1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
The notion that organic farming was more labor intensive was true only in the nutrient
management aspect of growing rice as in spreading rice straw and in preparing and applying
the prepared compost in the field. Spraying pesticides was 1.5 times more expensive because it
is difficult job. Thus ,the labor coefficient was adjusted.The total adjusted md for CF was
52.25. It was only 48.5 for the organic farm.
On the financial side, since the cash cost of production was significantly lower in the organic
farm, the net revenues per ha was higher despite the slightly lower yields (3.25 t ha-1 in organic
and 3.52 t ha-1 in the conventional). The less cash cost and higher net revenue in organic farm
(332 USD ha-1 and 290 USD in the conventional farm) allowed the farmers to retain more rice
for family consumption. While before they buy rice one to two months after harvest, through
organic rice farming they were retaining enough rice for family consumption while waiting for
the next season's harvest. Thus, in-situ or household level food security improved as they have
fewer loans to pay at harvest and lesser expenses.
On the energy use/environmental side, the fossil fuel based energy inputs (FFEI) in the
organic farms was only 18.3% (546.0 Mcal ha-1) relative to the conventional farms (2,977.21
Mcal ha-1). Thus, fossil CO2 emission in the organic rice farm was also considerably low (0.17
kg per CO2 per kg rice) while it was 0.84 kg CO2 per kg rice in the conventional farm. The
energy efficiency in organic farm was 19.42 and only 3.91 in the conventional farm which
means that for every 1 cal of fossil fuel energy used in the conventional farm only about 4 cal
was produced while it was 19 cal in the organic farm. Organic farms were lesser energy
consuming. One ton of paddy rice utilized only 170 Mcal of FFEI while 844 Mcal in the
conventional farms.
The impact study had shown the socio-economic, energy-use and environmental benefits of
organic farming over conventional farming. Thus, national research and extension program for
its promotion and widespread adoption by rice farmers in the country should be facilitated.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The financial assistance granted by Plan International, Philippines to the author so this case
study: Impact Analysis of Organic Farming in Rice Agroecosystems at Oriental Mindoro
could be done is highly appreciated. The assistance and facilitation role extended by Dr. Don
Del Castillo, Natural Resource Program Manager, Plan International Main Office, and Mr.
Maur Maub, Technical Officer of Plan Calapan Program office were very important in the
actual conduct of the field assessment, focus group discussions and individual farmers
interview. But this study could not have been realized if not for the full cooperation of the
farmers who enthusiastically share their time and valuable experiences.
22
1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
LITERRATURE CITED
BRIONES, A. M. 1998. Organic Agriculture: Facts and Myths. Paper presented at the
Consultative-Workshop on Organic Agriculture on 15 Dec. 1991. PCARRD, Los Baños,
Laguna.
COX, W.G. and M.D. Atkins. 1979. Agricultural Ecology. An analysis of World Food
Production Systems. 721 pp.
HORSTKOTLE-WESSELER, G. 1999. Socio-Economics of Rice Aquaculture and IPM in
the Philippines: Synergies; Potential and Problems. GTZ ICLARM IRRI 224 p.
LAMPKIN, N. and Measures, M. 1999. Organic Farm Management Handbook. 1999.
Welch Institute for Rural Studies, University of Sberystmyth.
MENDOZA, T. C. 2002. An Evaluation Study of Plan International Sustainable
Agriculture Program in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro. Report submitted to Plan International
Phil., 6th Floor N & M Building, Chino Roces Ave., Makati City, Phil. 123 pp.
MENDOZA, T.C. 1994. Adoption of Soil Benefitting Agricultural Practices for Lowland
Rice Production in the Philippines. Phil. Agriculturist. 77(2):235-241.
MENDOZA, T.C. 2002. Comparative Productivity, Profitability and Energy Use in
Organic, LEISA and COnventional Rice Production in the Philippines. Paper presented during
the 14th World Congress, IFOAM, Victoria, Canada.
PIMENTEL, D. (ed). 1980. Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
REICH, P.B., J. Knops, D. Tilman, J. Craine, D. Ellsworth, M. Tjolker, T. Lee, D. Wedin.
2001. Plant Diversity Enhances Ecosystem Responses to Elevated CO2 and Nitrogen
Deposition. Nature. 410:809-812.
REIJNTJES, C., Hauerkort , B , and Water –Bayer, A .1992. Farming for the future. An
Introduction to Low-External-Input and Sustainable Agriculture . Macmillan Press Ltd. ILEIA.
250 pp.
SORIANO , A .S. 1982. Energy – Based Analysis of Alternative Production Systems in
Irrigated Lowland Rice. MSc. Thesis. U.P. Los Baños , Laguna. 123 pp.
TOLENTINO, Bruce., E.O. Noneno, B. dela Peña, B. Rayco, and I. Villapando. 2001. 101
Facts about Rice in the Philippines.
WAIDE, R.B., M. R. Willig, C.F. Steiner, G. Mittelback, L. Gough, S.I. Dodson, G.P. Juday,
and R. Parmenter. 1999. The Relationship Between Productivity and Species Richness. Annu.
Rev. Syst. 30:257-300.
23
1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
Annex 1. Questions/topics discussed by farmers during the focus group discussions
(FGD)
When did you start organic/sustainable agriculture?
How were you convinced to go organic?
What are the benefits (or advantages) you realized in organic farming?



Farm
Farm houshold-wife, children
environment
What are your unique experiences and observations about organic/sustainable agriculture
in your farm?
24
1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
Annex 2. Summarized list of data/information asked during the individual farmers
interview (IFI)

Name of farmer, age, number of children


years into farming (OA, LEISA, CA) farm size, crops, animals raised

membership in organization/position reasons for the farming approach,
important observations and lessons learned in farming (OA, LEISA, CA)
Farming Cost Data (Unit Cost, quantity, etc.)
A. Labor

All farmers (OA, LEISA, CA)
Land preparation, seedling preparation, transplanting, water management,
weeding

OA only
* spreading of rice straw, compost/manure application, green manuring,
golden snail control

LEISA/CF
Spreading/no spreading of rice straw, fertilizer application, 1st, 2nd, 3rd dose
insecticides
appl;ication (2, 3, 4 times) herbicides application (pre- and post-emergent)
B. Inputs
Cash Costs
- Fertilizer (Urea, Complete, Amophos)
Pesticides (insecticides, molluscides, herbicides
- Tractor rent for land preparation
Tractor owners (oil, lubricants, depreciation)
Non-Cash Cost - Seeds, harvesting, threshing
C.
Yield
Note: OA
- Organic Agriculture
LEISA - Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture
CA
- Conventional Agriculture
25
1st RDA/ARNOA International Conference
“Development of Basic Standard for Organic Rice Cultivation”
12-15 November 2002, RDA and Dankook Univ. Korea
Annex 3. Criteria used in identifying and selecting organic rice farmers
1.
The farmer has a farm holding of at least one-half hectare of rice land.
2.
He/she is into organic rice farming (zero chemical fertilizer and pesticides,
recycle rice straw, apply additional compost, and/or animal manure) for at
least 3 years.
3.
He/she is willing to be interviewed and share the details of his/her farming practice
Note: An initial appointment was made before the actual date of interview as the interview takes a
minimum of 1.0 hr. This is necessary so the farmers to be interviewed could also adjust
their farm or off-farm activities.
26