how to cite this paper |
The Organic method of rice
production was more productive than LEISA (low external input sustainable agriculture) and
conventional methods. Only 52 USD were spent and 277 Mcal of energy used in producing 1
tonne of paddy rice through the organic method while 63 USD were spent and 501 Mcal of
energy were used in LEISA. Three times more
energy (837 Mcal) and 79 USD were spent in producing 1 tonne of rice in the conventional
method. Growing rice the organic method was 4
times more energy efficient than the conventional.
The agrochemical input
(fertilizer/pesticides) accounted for 61% of the fossil fuel based energy inputs and 84%
of the cash cost of production in the conventional system.
Organic rice farmers earn 7 dollars per 1 dollar cash expense while only 2 dollars
in conventional and 5 dollars in LEISA.
The findings in this case study
have shown that the organic method of production is a cost effective (and energy
efficient) means of solving the recurring credit problems of capital-scarce rice farmers
in the
Productivity and profitability continue to be the two most important indicators in assessing the success or failure of crop production. But high levels of productivity (though not necessarily profitable) have been and continue to be achieved through the heavy use of energy-based cultural inputs (Jones 1989; Hall et al 1992; Pimentel et al 1994) together with fertilizer-responsive high-yielding crop varieties (Jensen 1978), farm mechanization which facilitates timeliness of field operations, and irrigation which relieves the crop from any yield-depressing effect of water deficit during the sensitive growth stage.
All over the world, there has been a growing realization of the increasing inefficiencies of agricultural production (Pimentel et al 1983; 1980; Soriano 1982; Gowdy et al 1987; Mendoza 1991; Giampietro 1994; Singh et al 1997). From the time of Pimentel’s 1983 study, which pioneered energy analysis in agriculture, the direction, attention and interest has been to reduce energy use in production.
Fossil fuel oil reserves continue to decline and extraction and
exploration have become more difficult and expensive.
This has propelled fossil fuel price increases, which in turn has led to higher
food prices. This pattern of thinking,
however, is not shared by all. Bony (1993),
for instance, concluded that since 1977, direct energy use for wheat production in
There are two general
ways of pursuing an energy-conserving or energy-reducing agricultural production systems. The first involves improvement in the conventional
practices by introducing or adopting more efficient and energy-saving technologies and
practices (Reinjntjes et al 1992). The second requires fundamental changes, a major
shift or transformation in whole systems, values, and beliefs, of not only the farmers but
also the society at large. This has been
elucidated by various authors (Steiner 1924; Henning et al 1991; Rigby and Caceres 2001; Ohlander et al 1999, Pretty 1996 ).
In the
In the
Three farming systems (Organic, LEISA, and Conventional farming) were studied. In addition to productivity and profitability analysis, an energy analysis (efficiency and intensity) was included. Specifically, this case study was conducted to:
compare the 3 farm systems as to their productivity, profitability and energy use (efficiency and intensity)
be able to draw insights and lessons from the 3 systems that could guide research and extension in promoting a more ecology-sustainable rice production system in the country.
In a rice farming community, the research sites were selected
based on the following criteria: presence of farmer practitioners of Organic Agriculture
(OA), Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA) and Conventional Agriculture
(CF). As to the case farms, the following
criteria were used:
prospective farmer-partners with a farm holding of at least one
half hectare and that had been practicing the specific farming approach for the past 3
years,
the farms were located within the same village, and
the farmers were willing to share the details of their farming
practice.
Based on the above criteria, two research sites were selected.
The first case study was done at Infanta, Quezon (Mendoza et al. 2001) while the second
was done at Baco, Oriental Mindoro (Mendoza 2002)
The first case study site was in the village of Tudturan, in
the town of
The case study was conducted in a two (2) year period from 1998
to 2000. There were four cropping seasons (2
wet and 2 dry) . Field visits depended on the
activities on the farm, i.e. land preparation, planting, weeding/replanting,
harvesting/threshing, and gathering materials for composting. To collect data, the following instruments and
methods were used: questionnaires, historical accounts, focus observation, individual
interview, use of secondary data, record keeping.
Agronomic data such as yield per ha were monitored every after
harvest. The area of the farm was noted and
the yields were reported on a per ha basis. Important
plant data such as filled grain per panicle, unfilled grain per panicle and weight of
1,000 grains (g) were also obtained in the 3 farms.
The second case study was done in the
Data collection was done through an interview of the key
informants and individual farmers using a prepared and pre-tested questionnaire. This was supplemented by focus group discussions
that involved not only the participation of farmers (men and women) but also their
children (Mendoza 2001).
A total of 23 farmers were interviewed. Of the 23 farmers, 10 were conventional farmers, 7
were LEISA, and 6 were organic farmers. From
the questionnaire, details of farm activities were asked, their duration (man-days or
hours involved), quantity of inputs used (kg of pesticides if they were using them). Farm household data were also requested. This
included: number of years into farming, farm size, other crops planted, membership to
organizations, reasons for the farming method being used and important observations and
lessons learned in farming.
The farmers, representative of the organic and LEISA
systems, were identified earlier, while the conventional farmers (still the majority of
farmers) were selected randomly from the names provided by the municipal agricultural
officer (MAO).
The analysis of data was focused on 3 domains namely:
productivity, financial soundness and energy analysis of the 3 farm systems (organic,
LEISA and conventional). The productivity analysis was based on the usual yield and other
important yield components. Whenever possible,
the reasons for high yields, which differed across sites and farm systems, were
provided. The agronomic practices, climate or
soil features of the farms were compared. In the financial and energy analysis, suitable
methods for the case study were adopted.
All cost items were accorded monetary values (in
peso-Philippine currency and in US Dollars; 1 USD = P50). The cost items were delineated into cash and
non-cash costs (cash + non-cash = total costs). It
was necessary to separate the two cost items because the non-cash costs were paid-in-kind
at harvest time. They did not involve any cash outlay on the part of the farmer, but they
were a substantial costs item when they were deducted from the gross or total yield. Details of cash and
non-cash items are listed in Appendix Table 1.
The different indicators computed in the financial analysis
were as follows: Net revenue (NR), net revenue/cash expense ratio (NCER), Break-even Yield
(BEY) and cost to produce 1 tonne of grain. The
corresponding mechanical formulae used in computing the different financial indicators
were as follows:
Net Revenue (NR) =
Gross Revenue (GR)-Total Costs (TC)
(1)
Where: (GR) = Grain yield * Price of un-milled rice (farm
gate price)
(TC) = Cash costs + Non-cash costs
Net Revenue/Cash Expense Ratio (NCER) = NR ÷ Cash expense (2)
It is important to note that NCER was used instead of ROI
(return on investment), where the denominator
is the total cost, because the cash outlay was more important for the farmers in rural
Break-even Yield (BEY) = Total Costs ÷
Unit Price
(3)
= P ha-1 ÷
(P) Price of rice kg-1
= kg ha-1
Cost to produce 1 tonne of rice =
Total Costs ÷ Grain Yield ha -1
(4)
= P ha-1 ÷ tonnes
ha-1
= P tonne-1
The use of energy was delineated into fossil fuel based energy
inputs (FFEI) and indirect fossil fuel based inputs (IFFEI). The FFEI includes: fuel and oil used by the tractor,
chemical fertilizers (N, P, K) and pesticides. The
energy values (Mcal) were derived from published literature (Pimentel et al 1983; Cox and Atkins 1979). Labor and seeds comprised the indirect fossil fuel
energy inputs. For labor, the energy values (Mcal) by operation were taken from Kuether
and Duff (1980), as cited by Soriano (1982).
Rice grain energy values were as follows: Seeds at 12% of
moisture, 4.0 Mcal kg -1 ; un-milled rice wet season harvest, 20-24% moisture
at 3.0 Mcal kg-1 and un-milled rice dry season harvest, 18-20% moisture at 3.2
Mcal kg-1.
Two measures of energy use were employed: energy efficiency
(Ee) and energy Intensity (Ei).
The Energy efficiency (Ee) is the ratio between the Mcal energy
output per ha (grain yield) and the Mcal energy inputs per ha. It gives an indication of how much energy was
produced per unit energy used. Since the
energy inputs were delineated into 2 categories (FFEI and IFFEI), Ee was computed twice as
follows:
Energy Efficiency (Ee) = Mcal (grain) ÷
Mcal (FFEI)
(5)
Energy Efficiency (Ee) = Mcal (grain) ÷
Mcal (TEI)
(6)
This was done to find out the Ee with the direct fossil
fuel-based energy inputs as in the manufacture of fertilizer or pesticides. Labor and seeds as in the financial analysis are
not really treated as costs by farmers in the
The Energy intensity (Ei) shows how much energy (Mcal) was used
to produce 1 tonne of grain. As in Ee, it was
estimated in two ways as follows:
Ei =
Mcal (FFEI) ÷ Grain yield (tonne ha-1) = Mcal t-1 of grain
(7)
Ei =
Mcal (TEI) ÷ Grain yield (tonne ha-1) = Mcal t-1 of grain
(8)
While related to Ee, Ei provides quantitative data on how much
energy (FFEI or TEI) was spent in the production of rice (Mcal tonne-1 of
grain).
The comparative yields of
Organic, LEISA and Conventional farmers are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Comparative yields
(t ha-1) among the Organic, LEISA and Conventional Farming systems |
||||
Site |
Organic |
LEISA |
Conventional |
Average |
Infanta, Quezon1/
|
4.37 |
3.88 |
2.98 |
3.74 |
Baco, Oriental Mindoro2/ |
3.25 |
3.28 |
3.52 |
3.35 |
Ave. for 2 sites |
3.81 |
3.58 |
3.25 |
|
1/Average for 4 cropping
seasons (2 wet season and 2 dry season crops, 1998-2000 for Organic and LEISA and 2 cropping seasons (Wet and Dry season
1999-2000) for conventional. |
||||
The representative case farms for organic rice production in
Infanta, Quezon obtained the highest yield followed by LEISA and the lowest was the
conventional system. Rice yields obtained at
Baco, Oriental Mindoro were about the same for the 3 types of farming systems.
The average yields for the two sites revealed that yields
obtained in the organic farms were slightly higher (17.2%) when compared to the
conventional farms. Farmers who were into cost
cutting measures (through LEISA) also obtained slightly higher yields when compared to
farmers using the conventional method.
Only in Infanta, Quezon were seasonal yields
monitored. Yield data gathering was done in
two (2) wet seasons (WS) and two dry seasons (DS). During
the wet season, rice yield was highest in he Organic farms, followed by LEISA farms, and
it was lowest in the conventional farm (Table 2).
Table 2. Rice
yield (kg ha-1) obtained in the three (3) farms for wet season (WS) and dry
season (DS), Infanta, Quezon only |
|||
Farm |
Wet Season |
Dry Season |
Average* |
Conventional |
2,445 |
3,507 |
2,976 |
LEISA |
3,748 |
4,024 |
3,886 |
Organic |
3,918 |
4,822 |
4,370 |
*Average of four (4) cropping seasons for LEISA and Organic, while
2 cropping season for Conventional. |
|||
While rice yields were higher during the dry season (DS), the
yield trend was the same for the 3 case farms. Highest
yield was obtained in the organic farm, followed by the LEISA farm and the lowest was in
the conventional farm. Higher yields were
obtained in all farms during the dry season. This could be attributed to the higher
photosynthetic productivity occurring during the sunshine-rich dry season cropping. It was the conventional farm which had the lowest
yield during the wet season as cloudy-rainy weather is not conducive to input utilization. Also, the case study period coincided with frequent
heavy rains. It was observed that more than
50% of rice plants simply lodged in the conventional farms.
Heavy N-fertilized crops had heavy top growth.
This rendered the rice plants in the conventional farm susceptible to lodging. That
the Organic farm yielded higher during both wet and dry seasons, compared with the
conventional farm, is suggestive of the following important considerations in the life of
small-holder rice farmers in the
It should dispel doubts that rice yield would
decline if no chemical fertilizer or pesticides are applied.
It eliminates the risks of losing money due to
weather-induced risks.
While organic residue recycling is more labor intensive than
applying fertilizers, it is more rewarding as yields were higher.
Rice yield in the organic farm was 19.9% higher than in the
LEISA farm and was 37.4% higher than in the conventional farm during the dry season. Not only was the yield in tonnes per ha higher in
the Organic farm, but the grains in the panicle were also heavier. The weight of 1000
grains in the Organic farm was also higher than in the Conventional farm (Table 3). Filled
grains per panicle were highest in the Organic farm while it was lowest in LEISA, the
Conventional farm being intermediate. Percent
unfilled grains were highest in LEISA while it was comparable in Organic and Conventional
farms.
Table 3.
Comparative grain features (filled-unfilled grains, weight of 1000 grains) in
Organic, LEISA and Conventional farm |
|||||
Farm |
Filled grain |
Unfilled grain per panicle |
% Unfilled |
Weight of |
|
Organic Farm |
91.5 |
24.1 |
20.0 |
27.4 |
|
LEISA Farm |
44.9 |
25.8 |
36.0 |
23.4 |
|
Conventional Farm |
70.8 |
19.5 |
22.0 |
25.7 |
|
Grain weight is a determinant of grain milling recovery. Upon milling, higher grain recovery was obtained in
the Organic farm.
Why were organic farmers getting higher yields than LEISA or
the Conventional farmers? It was not simply the weather factor or the input application
that affected yields. Farm management and crop
care also affected yields.
In both sites (Infanta, Quezon and Baco, Oriental Mindoro), the
representative organic farmers were raising livestock (ducks in Infanta, Quezon and ducks
and swine in Baco, Oriental Mindoro). Thus,
they produced on-farm the manure or compost requirements of their rice crop. When asked why they were raising livestock, the
farmers answered that it was their way of increasing their income from farming. The income from rice farming alone was not
sufficient to support their families. From the
seminars/training they attended, livestock (due to their manure) was a critical component
of organic farming (source of manure, farm power, immediate cash as in poultry and ducks).
The organic rice farmers were not simply mono-crop rice
farmers. They were involved in rice cum livestock
production due to the following reasons: ducks because they help the farmers in
picking golden snails (golden snail is one of the serious pests in lowland rice production
in the
The variations in yield obtained in organic farms when compared
with those in the conventional farms were consistent with the intensive reviews done by
Stanhill (1990). Of the 30 yield comparisons
he made, the mean yield of 13 cases of organically grown crops exceeded those of the
conventional cropping systems, were equal in 2, and were less in 15. In our case study, of the seven (7) organic rice
farms studied, all except one (1) were getting higher yields compared with the average
yields obtained in the conventional farms. Stanhill's
(1990) data were based on maize; ours was rice. Stanhill
(1990) noticed that conventionally farmed fields gave higher maize yields than organic
fields during favorable cropping conditions, whereas the opposite was the case during
adverse, low yielding conditions. In our case
study, rice yields were higher in both conditions. Rice
yields in organic farms were 38% higher during sunny and zero typhoon dry season cropping (favorable condition)
and about 60% higher during rainy, cloudy and typhoon-laden wet season cropping (less favorable condition) at Infanta, Quezon.
Financial Analysis
In Infanta, Quezon, the lowest gross revenue was obtained
during the wet season in the Conventional farms (USD 357/ha) while the highest gross
revenue was obtained in the Organic farms during the dry season (USD 771). The lower yield in the conventional farms
explains why the revenue was the lowest. Low
yield was attributed mainly to the rainy weather as explained earlier. For easier comparisons of the financial soundness
of the 3 farms, the indicators used in the financial analysis were summarized as follows: Net Revenue (Table 4), Total Cost (Table 5),
Break-even yield (Table 7), Net revenue/cash expense ratio (Table 8) and cost to produce 1
tonne of un-milled rice (Table 9).
Highest net revenue per ha was obtained in organic farms in
both sites (Table 4). The average for the two
sites was 70% higher than in the conventional farms. Between sites, net revenue was more
than doubled in the organic farm at Infanta, Quezon. This
could be attributed to the higher gross revenue due mainly to higher yields obtained in
the organic farm.
Table 4. Comparative Net
Revenue (in USD per ha) of organic, LEISA, and conventional farms in 2 sites |
|||
Site |
Organic |
LEISA |
Conventional |
Infanta, |
498.64 |
382.20 |
198.02 |
(251.20) |
(193.00) |
(100.00)* |
|
Baco, Oriental |
332.00 |
304.00 |
290.00 |
(114.50) |
(104.80) |
(100.00) |
|
Ave. for 2 sites |
415.32 |
343.10 |
244.01 |
(170.20) |
(140.57 |
(100.00) |
|
*Figures in parenthesis are relative values where the conventional
farm was used as the reference or index value |
|||
Table 5. Total cash (cash
+ non-cash) expenditures (in USD) in producing rice per ha basis in the 3 different farms
and in 2 sites, |
||||
Site |
Item |
Organic |
LEISA |
Conventional |
Infanta, Quezon |
Total |
187.96 |
226.72 |
238.28 |
Cash |
84.22 |
69.33 |
121.22 |
|
Non-Cash |
103.75 |
157.38 |
117.06 |
|
Baco, Oriental |
Total |
187.98 |
220.48 |
271.28 |
Cash |
38.98 |
74.40 |
117.88 |
|
Non-Cash |
149.12 |
146.08 |
155.20 |
|
Average |
Total |
187.97 |
223.60 |
254.78 |
Cash |
61.54 |
71.86 |
119.55 |
|
Non-Cash |
126.43 |
151.74 |
135.23 |
|
In Baco, Oriental Mindoro, despite the slightly lower yields
obtained in the organic farms (3.25 tonnes ha-1) compared with the conventional
farm (3.35 tonnes ha-1), net revenue was higher by 14.5%. This is because the total cost of production was
much lower in the organic farm than in the conventional farm. The main reason why the total cost was 44% higher
in the conventional farm was because of the chemical inputs applied which were 83% of the
cash costs or 36.0% of the total cost of production. The
agrochemical inputs (fertilizer and pesticides) in the conventional farm as a percent of
both the cash and total cost were computed (Table 6).
Chemical fertilizer accounted for about half (52.2%) of the cash input costs.
Table 6. Agrochemical
inputs (fertilizer and pesticides) in Conventional farms as per cent (%) cash input cost
and total cost in two sites, |
||||
Item |
Infanta,
Quezon |
Baco,
Oriental, Mindoro |
Average |
|
Production
Cost* |
||||
Cash Cost |
6,061 |
5,894 |
5,977 |
|
Non-Cash Cost |
5,853 |
7,760 |
6,806 |
|
Total (P) |
11,914 |
13,654 |
12,784 |
|
(USD)
|
238 |
273 |
255 |
|
Input
(Cash Input) |
6,061 |
5,894 |
5,977 |
|
Oil |
989 |
989 |
989 |
|
Agrochem |
5,072 |
4,905 |
4,988 |
|
|
Fertilizer |
2,400 |
3,822 |
3,111 |
|
Pesticides |
2,672 |
1,083 |
1,877 |
Fertilizer |
||||
% of Input Cost |
39.6 |
64.8 |
52.2 |
|
% of Total Cost |
20.1 |
28.0 |
24.1 |
|
Pesticides |
||||
% of Input Cost |
44.1 |
18.4 |
31.2 |
|
% of Total Cost |
22.4 |
8.0 |
15.2 |
|
AgroChem |
||||
% of
Input Cost |
83.7 |
83.2 |
83.4 |
|
% of
Total Cost |
42.6 |
36.0 |
39.3 |
|
*Philippine peso currency, exchange rate 1USD = P50; unless specified the figures are in
peso. |
||||
In terms of net revenue, LEISA was at the middle of the two. The relative net revenue was high (93%) in Infanta, Quezon while it was minimal (4.8%) in Baco, Oriental Mindoro. This was due to the considerably higher yield (hence gross revenue) obtained in the LEISA farm and the cost of production was still slightly lower (5%) in the LEISA farm. In both sites, the minimal chemical input application brought down considerably the cash cost of production by 37% (average for 2 sites). Since the total cost of production was mainly due to the higher cash cost of production, breakeven yield (the yield level that pays for all the costs) was highest in the conventional farm followed by organic and LEISA farms, respectively (Table 7).
Table 7. Breakeven Yield (kg ha-1) in organic, LEISA and
conventional farms in 2 sites, Infanta, Quezon and Baco, Oriental Mindoro, Philippines |
|||
Site |
Organic |
LEISA |
Conventional |
Infanta, Quezon |
1253 |
1445 |
1489 |
(84) |
(97) |
(100)* |
|
Baco Oriental, Mindoro |
1175 |
1378 |
1706 |
(69) |
(81) |
(100) |
|
Average for 2 sites |
1214 |
1412 |
1597 |
(76) |
(88.4) |
(100) |
|
*Data in parenthesis are relative
breakeven yields where the conventional farm was used as the reference yield |
|||
This means that organic farmers were earning more as shown in
the net return over cash expense (NRCE). NRCE
is the ratio between the net return over the cash cost of production (Table 8). NRCE
was used instead of the usual return on investment (ROI) because ROI is the ratio between
Gross Return over Total Cost of Production (Cash + Non-Cash). The non-cash costs of production in rice farming
under Philippine condition are paid in-kind at harvest time.
The farmers do not consider these items as costs.
What they consider as cash expenses were only those that required money as in
buying inputs and in paying labor for transplanting. Due
to the high cash costs and the lower net revenue in the conventional farm, the NCRE values
were lowest in the conventional farm and highest in the organic farms. This means that rice farmers in the Philippine earn
more money for every peso they spend in organic rice farming than in conventional and
LEISA farming .
Table 8.
Net return over cash expense ratio (NRCER) ratio among organic, LEISA and
conventional farms in 2 sites, |
|||
Site |
Organic |
LEISA |
Conventional |
Infanta, Quezon |
5.92 |
5.51 |
1.63 |
(363) |
(338) |
(100)* |
|
Baco, Oriental |
8.54 |
4.09 |
2.46 |
(347.2) |
(166.3) |
(100) |
|
Average for |
7.23 |
4.8 |
2.05 |
(353) |
(234) |
(100) |
|
*Data in parenthesis are relative NRCE where
the Conventional farming was used as the reference value |
|||
It was cheaper to produce 1 tonne of un-milled rice in organic
than in LEISA and in conventional farming. (Table 9).
Table 9. Cost to produce 1 tonne (in USD) of un-milled rice in Organic, LEISA and Conventional Farms in 2 sites, Infanta Quezon and Baco, Oriental Mindoro |
|||
Site |
Organic |
LEISA |
Conventional |
Infanta, Quezon |
46.0 |
58.4 |
80.0 |
(57.5) |
(73) |
(100)* |
|
Baco Oriental, |
57.8 |
67.2 |
77.6 |
(74.5) |
(86.6) |
(100) |
|
Average for 2 sites |
52.0 |
62.8 |
78.8 |
(66.0) |
(79.7) |
(100) |
|
*Data in parenthesis are relative values
where cost to produce 1 tonne of un-milled rice in conventional farming was used as the
reference value |
|||
With globalization and the ensuing import liberalization,
growing rice through the organic farming method could enable the farmers to compete with
the influx of cheaply imported caloric food sources (bread, wheat) including rice. Organic farming as adopted in rice production
lessens the cash expense considerably. Where to borrow money is a big worry especially
among women as they are the money keepers under Philippine culture. It also minimizes the sleepless nights or
nightmares of farmers especially during the rainy season.
Rains in the
The detailed energy audit of the various energy requiring
operations and stages of rice production under organic, LEISA and Conventional farm in two
sites (Infanta, Quezon and Baco, Oriental Mindoro) are shown in Appendix Table 3 and 4. Energy Input utilization showed similar trends in
both sites. On the average, organic farms
(Table 10) utilized the lowest amount of energy, which was only 36.6% of the total energy
utilized in the conventional farms. The LEISA
farms were at the middle. On average, they
utilized only 62.2% of the energy utilized in the conventional farms. Many researchers found the same result in earlier
studies (Loake 2001; Refsgaard et al 1998; Pimentel et al 1983).
The indirect fossil fuel based energy inputs (labor, seeds)
were almost the same in both sites and in the 3 farm systems. It was only slightly higher
in the organic farms at Infanta, Quezon. This
was because the case study farmer was hauling the manure and the rice harvest, and the
distance was quite far from the farm to the feeder road.
The main factor, therefore, that caused the big difference in the total energy used
in the 3 farms was the fossil fuel based energy inputs ((Table 10). On the average, the organic farms utilized only
24.3% (LEISA 55.3%) of fossil fuel based energy inputs relative to the conventional farm.
Of the total 2,848 Mcal ha-1 energy utilized in the conventional farms, 84%
(2,385 Mcal ha-1) was the share of the fossil fuel based energy inputs.
Table 10. Energy inputs in Organic, LEISA and Conventional farms in two sites |
|||
Item |
Organic, |
LEISA, |
Conventional, |
Infanta,
Quezon |
|||
FFEI |
612 |
1,338 |
1,793 |
(34.1%)* |
(74.6)* |
(100.0%) |
|
IFFEI |
530 |
496 |
504 |
Total Energy |
1,142 |
1,834 |
2,297 |
Baco,
Oriental Mindoro |
|||
FFEI |
546 |
1,300 |
2,977 |
(18.3%)* |
(43.7)* |
(100.0%) |
|
FFEI |
402 |
412 |
423 |
Total Energy |
948 |
1712 |
3,400 |
Average
for 2 sites |
|||
FFEI: |
578 |
1,319 |
2,385 |
(24.3%)* |
(55.3)* |
(100.0%) |
|
IFFEI: |
466 |
454 |
463 |
Total Energy |
1,045 |
1,773 |
2,848 |
(36.6%) |
(62.2%) |
(100.0%) |
|
*Data
in parenthesis are percentage of energy utilized in organic and/or LEISA relative to
Conventional farms (the reference value); |
|||
A detailed accounting on how the fossil fuel based energy
inputs (FFEI) were utilized in relation to the total energy inputs (TEI) is shown in Table
11. Agro-chemical inputs (fertilizer and
pesticides) on the average, accounted for about 82.8% of fossil fuel based energy inputs
(FFEI) in the conventional farms. At Baco, Oriental Mindoro, FFEI was about 88%. Paddy fields at Oriental Mindoro were less fertile
than Infanta, Quezon. Thus, farmers were
applying more fertilizers particularly nitrogen and nitrogen fertilizer utilizes high
amount of energy (14.19 Mcal kg-1) during manufacture (Mudahar and Hignett
1985). Nitrogen fertilizer alone accounted for
about 69.1% for the FFEI or 60.5% of TEI in the conventional farms at Baco, Oriental
Mindoro. In LEISA farms, the share of FFEI to TEI was 74% and only 54.8% on organic farms. Agrochemical inputs were zero (0) in organic farms,
40.5% in LEISA and about 60.6% in the conventional farms.
Table 11.
Percentage (%) share of the various energy inputs in Organic, LEISA and
Conventional farms in two sites, |
||||||
Input |
Organic |
LEISA |
Conventional |
|||
% FFEI |
%TEI |
%FFEI |
%TEI |
%FFEI |
%TEI |
|
Infanta,
Quezon |
||||||
FFEI |
- |
52.0 |
- |
73.0 |
- |
78.0 |
Machinery + fuel |
100.0 |
52.0 |
45.3 |
33.1 |
33.8 |
26.4 |
Agro-chemical |
0 |
54.7 |
39.9 |
65.7 |
51.3 |
|
IFFOEI |
48.0 |
27.0 |
21.9 |
|||
Labor |
19.5 |
9.6 |
7.8 |
|||
• Seeds |
28.4 |
17.4 |
14.1 |
|||
TOTAL |
100.0 |
100.00 |
100.0 |
|||
Baco Oriental |
||||||
FFEI |
57.6 |
79.9 |
88.0 |
|||
Machinery + fuel |
100.0 |
57.6 |
45.3 |
34.2 |
20.5 |
18.0 |
Agro-chemical |
0 |
|
54.8 |
41.7 |
79.5 |
70.0 |
IFFOEI |
42.4 |
24.1 |
12.0 |
|||
• Labor |
17.1 |
10.1 |
5.0 |
|||
• Seeds |
25.3 |
14.0 |
7.0 |
|||
TOTAL |
100.0 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
|||
Average for 2 sites |
||||||
FFEI |
54.8 |
74.0 |
82.8 |
|||
Machinery + fuel |
100.0 |
54.8 |
45.3 |
33.5 |
27.2 |
22.2 |
Agro-chemical |
0 |
54.7 |
40.5 |
72.6 |
60.6 |
|
IFFOEI |
|
|
17.2 |
|||
• Labor |
18.0 |
10.5 |
7.4 |
|||
• Seeds |
27.2 |
15.5 |
9.8 |
|||
TOTAL |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.00 |
|||
Agro-chemical = fertilizer+ pesticides |
||||||
Because the conventional farms were utilizing a considerably
high amount of fossils fuel based energy inputs, particularly in the form of agrochemical
inputs (fertilizers and pesticides), their energy efficiencywas the lowest among the 3
farms (Table 12).
Table 12. Energy
efficiency (Ee) and Energy intensity (Ei) of Organic, LEISA, and Conventional farms in two
sites, |
|||
Indicator |
Organic |
LEISA |
Conventional |
Infanta, Quezon |
|||
Energy Efficiency (Ee)* |
|||
Ee (FFEI) |
23.64(3.98x) |
9.57(1.61x) |
5.94 |
Ee (TEI) |
12.72 |
7.0 |
4.67 |
Energy Intensity (Ei)** |
|||
Ei (FFEI) Mcal t-1 |
140.0 |
350.0 |
560.0 |
Ei (TEI) Mcal t-1 |
260.0 |
475.0 |
714.0 |
Baco, Oriental Mindoro |
|||
Energy Efficiency (Ee) |
|||
Ee (FFEI) |
19.4 |
8.25 |
3.91 |
Ee (TEI) |
11.18 |
6.26 |
3.42 |
Energy Intensity (Ei) |
|||
Ei (FFE) Mcal t-1 |
170 |
400 |
844 |
Ei (TEI) Mcal t-1 |
294 |
527 |
960 |
* Ee (FFEI) = Mcal
of grain yield ÷ Mcal of Fossil Fuel based Inputs |
|||
In this particular energy audit, the seeds and labor were given
energy values. At the farm level, farmers do
not usually pay particular attention to these items. Firstly,
they are mostly using saved seeds from their previous harvests. Second, they are farmers and they are there in the
farm to work. Thus, their labor is not
considered as cost. As in the financial
analysis, these were treated as non-cash costs. In
this energy analysis they were grouped as indirect fossil fuel oil based energy inputs
(IFFOEI). Seed production also utilized fossil
fuel-based energy and labor was also incurred in the various field operations. If these items are not treated as cash-cost, they
could also be treated as non-energy cost. This
would increase considerably the energy efficiency (Ee) of organic farms at Ee = 21.5,
and LEISA at Ee = 8.91. Conventional farms had Ee = 4.93. This
makes organic farms 4.4 times more energy efficient while LEISA was 1.8 times more energy
efficient than the conventional farms.
The organic farms were the least energy intensive (Ei). Conventional rice
farming utilized 4.2 times more FFEI when compared with rice grown the organic way.
Comparing the 2 study sites , Ei was higher in Baco, Oriental Mindoro compared with
Infanta, Quezon. The
higher Ei at Baco,Oriental Mindoro was due to
the higher amount of agrochemical inputs used, which
in turn was due to its lower soil fertility. Higher
yields were also obtained by the case study organic rice farmer at Infanta, Quezon .
The influence of season on energy use, energy efficiency and
intensity was also estimated. This was done
only in Infanta, Quezon (Table 13). The use of
energy inputs (TEI, Mcal ha-1) was slightly higher during the dry season than
the during the wet season in all of the 3 farms. But
the difference in energy use between dry and wet season was largest in LEISA, 678 Mcal ha-1,
followed by the conventional farm 246 Mcal ha-1, and lowest in the organic farm
at 33 Mcal ha-1.
Table 13. Comparative
seasonal (wet and dry) energy utilization; energy efficiency (Ee) and energy intensity
(Ei) in Organic, LEISA, and Conventional farms, Infanta, Quezon |
|||
Season |
Organic |
LEISA |
Conventional |
Wet Season |
|||
FFEI, Mcal ha-1 |
586 |
1247 |
1672 |
IFFEI, Mcal ha-1 |
539 |
498 |
502 |
TEI, Mcal ha-1 |
1125 |
1245 |
2174 |
Energy Output (Grain) (Mcal ha-1) |
11754 |
11235 |
8835 |
Energy Efficiency (Ee) |
|||
Ee (FFEI) |
20.0 |
9.0 |
5.3 |
Ee (TEI) |
10.4 |
6.4 |
4.1 |
Energy
Intensity (Ei) |
|||
Ei (FFEI) (Mcal tonne-1) |
150 |
330 |
570 |
Ei (TEI) (Mcal tonne-1) |
290 |
470 |
738 |
Dry Season |
|||
FFEI, Mcal ha-1 |
637 |
1429 |
1914 |
IFFEI, Mcal ha-1 |
521 |
494 |
506 |
TEI, Mcal ha-1 |
1158 |
1923 |
2420 |
Energy Output (Grain) (Mcal ha-1) |
17359 |
14486 |
12625 |
Energy Efficiency (Ee) |
|||
Ee (FFEI) |
27.2 |
10.1 |
6.6 |
Ee (TEI) |
15.0 |
7.5 |
5.2 |
Energy
Intensity (Ei) |
|||
Ei (FFE) (Mcal tonne-1) |
132 |
360 |
550 |
Ei (FFEI) (Mcal tonne-1) |
240 |
480 |
690 |
Ee (FFEI) = Mcal of grain yield ÷ Mcal of Fossil Fuel based
Inputs |
|||
The higher yields obtained during the more photosynthetically
productive and input efficient dry season cropping led to its higher energy efficiency
(Ee) in the 3 farms when compared with the wet
season cropping. Higher yields (when
expressed in calorific energy yields) during the dry months had sufficiently offset the
higher energy use due to chemical fertilizer in both LEISA and conventional farms. The case study organic farm was still superior when
compared to LEISA and conventional farms. Energy
efficiency in the organic farms was about 3 times higher when compared to the conventional
farm and about 2 times to that of LEISA. Consequently, the energy intensity (Ei) which is
the production of 1 tonne of un-milled rice was less during the dry season compared with
the wet season in the conventional farm. Within
seasons, Ei was 2.5 times higher in the conventional farms vs. organic farms during the
wet season and about 3.0 times higher during the dry season.
Bony’s study (1993) revealed that the increasing energy
efficiency of maize production in
Growing rice by the organic method was more energy efficient (4 times) compared to conventional and almost 2 times compared to Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA). The agrochemical input (chemical fertilizer and pesticides), while it was zero in the organic farms, was about 61% of the total energy inputs in the conventional farms and reduced to 40.5% in LEISA. Organic farms were using only 37% the total energy use on conventional farms, while LEISA was using 62.2%.
Organic farms required
the least amount of energy to produce 1 tonne of paddy rice.
Conventional farms used 3 times more energy to produce the same tonne of paddy rice
compared with the organic farms.
Agrochemical inputs
(pesticides and fertilizer) were 83.4% of the cash cost production in the conventional
farm. It was
32% cheaper to produce the same quantity of paddy rice in organic compare to conventional
farming. Because of the lower cash expenditure
in organic farms, the break-even yield (or the yield level to recover costs) was also
lower in the organic farms compared to conventional farms and LEISA farms.
Organic farmers realized
7 pesos per 1 peso cash expense (net return over cash expense ratio, NCER) while only 2
pesos per peso expenditure in the conventional farm. It
was about 5 pesos in LEISA.
Thus, in all the 3 major bases of comparisons (productivity, profitability, and energy use), growing rice the organic way was found to be a superior method. Organic farmers obtained slightly higher yields on the average. It was found to be the cheapest way to grow rice. It required the least amount of energy (fossil fuel based energy). The organic method is the rice farming system that holds greatest promise to uplift the economic plight of small-scale and resource-poor rice farmers. The organic method of rice farming was shown to minimize cash expenses and the need for huge production loans.
Case study 1 (Infanta,
Quezon) was funded by the Philippine Council for Agriculture Resources Research and
Development (PCARRD), while case study 2 (Baco, Oriental Mindoro) was sponsored by Plan
International Philippines. The author would
like to thank Ms. Lucila Pecadizo, University Researcher, Department of Agronomy,
Baldwindy P S and Fluck R C 1993
Energy productivity of a production system: Analysis and measurement. Agricultural Systems. 43, 415-437.
Bony S 1993 Is agriculture
using more and more energy? A French case
study. Agricultural Systems 43, 51-56.
Cleveland C J 1995 The
direct and indirect use of fossil fuels and electricity in
Cox G W and Atkins M D 1979
Agricultural ecology, An analysis of world food production systems. W.H. Freeman and Co.,
Damo C B 2002 Sustainability
of rice-cotton and corn-cotton cropping systems in
Giampietro M 1994 Models of
energy analysis to assess the performance of food systems.
Agricultural Systems. 45, 19-41.
Gowdy J M, Miller J L and
Kherbachi K 1987 Energy use in
Hall C, Cleveland A S Cutler and
Kaufmann R K 1992 Energy and resource quality: The ecology of the economic process. University Press of
Henning J, Baker L and Thomasin
P 1991. Economic issues in organic agriculture. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 39,
877-889.
Jones M R 1989 Analysis of
the use of energy in agriculture-approaches and problems.
Agricultural Systems. 29, 339-355.
Lampkin N and Measures M 1999 Organic
farm management Handbook. 1999. Welsh
Institute for Rural Studies,
Loake C 2001 Energy
Accounting and well-being-examining
Mendoza T C 1991 Coupling
food and energy production. Professorial
lecture on agro-industrial farming systems. Department
of Agronomy,
Mendoza T C, Pecadizo L M, de
los Santos W L and Briones A M 2001 Organic/Sustainable agriculture in rice-based farms in Infanta, Quezon. Terminal Report. DOST-PCARRD funded Project No.
8966221. UPLB, Los Baņos, Laguna. 75 pp.
Mendoza T C 2002 An
Evaluation study of plan international sustainable agriculture program in Calapan,
Oriental Mindoro. Report submitted to Plan
International
Mudahar M S and Hignett T P 1985
Energy efficiency in nitrogen fertilizer production.
Energy in Agriculture. 4, 159-77.
Nguyen Van Nguu 1976 An
agro-economic analysis on the efficency of some cultural energy inputs for lowland rice
production. Ph.D. Thesis. UPLD, College, Laguna. 157 pp.
Ohlander L, Lagerberg C and
Gertsson U 1999 Visions for ecologically sound agricultural systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. 14(1), 73-79.
Panesar B S and Fluck R C 1993
Energy productivity of a production system: Analysis
and measurement. Agricultural Systems. 43, 415-437.
Pimentel D (editor) 1980 Handbook
of energy utilization in agriculture. CRC
Press,
Pimentel D, Berardi G and Fast S
1983 Energy efficiency of farming systems: Organic and conventional Agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment. 9, 359-372.
Pimentel D 1993 Economics
and energetics of organic and conventional farming. Journal
of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 6, 53-61.
Pretty J 1996 Could
sustainable agriculture feed the world? Biologist. 43, 130-133.
Refsgaard K, Halberg N and
Kristensen E S 1998 Energy utilization in crop and dairy production in organic and
conventional livestock production systems. Agricultural
Systems 57(4), 599-630.
Reijntjes C, Hauerkort B and
Waters-Bayer A 1992 Farming for the future. An
introduction to low-external-input and sustainable agriculture. Macmillan Press Ltd. ILEIA. 250 pp.
Rigby D and Caceres D 2001
Organic farming and the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agriculutral Systems. 68, 21-40.
Singh G S, Rao K S and Saxena K
G 1997 Energy and economic efficiency of the mountain farming system: a case study in the North-Western Himalaya. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. 9(2/3), 25-60.
Soriano A S 1982
Energy-based analysis of alternative production systems in irrigated lowland rice. MSc. Thesis. U.P. Los Baņos, Laguna. 123 pp.
Stanhill
G 1990 Comparative productivity of organic agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 30, 1-26.
Steiner R 1924 In
"Agriculture: a course of eight lectures". Rudolph Steiner Press/Biodynamic
Agriculture Association,
Uhlin Hans-Erik 1998 Why
energy productivity is increasing: An
input-output analysis of Swedish agriculture. Agricultural
systems 56(4), 443-465.
Received 14 September 2002