LIMITED PROCEEDINGS

L P
2008 No. 13

Seed Health Improvement

for Pest Management and
Crop Production

Edited by T.W. Mew and M. Hossain

Papers presented at the technical sessions

of the Final Workshop on the Rice Seed Health
Improvement Project, Dhaka, Bangladesh
The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) was estab-
lished in 1960 by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations with
the help and approval of the Government of the Philippines.
Today, IRRI is one of the 15 nonprofit international research
centers supported by the Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR – www.cgiar.org).
IRRI receives support from several CGIAR
members, including the World Bank, European Union, Asian
Development Bank, International Fund for
Agricultural Development, Rockefeller Foundation, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and agencies
of the following countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Den-
mark, France, Germany, India, Iran, Japan, Malaysia, Norway,
People’s Republic of China, Republic of Korea, Republic of the
Philippines, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, United Kingdom,
United States, and Vietnam.
The responsibility for this publication rests with the Inter-
national Rice Research Institute.

IRRI Limited Proceedings Series

Copyright International Rice Research Institute 2009

Mailing address: DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines

Phone: +63 (2) 580-5600
Fax: +63 (2) 580-5699
Email: irri@cgiar.org
Web site: www.irri.org.
Rice Knowledge Bank: www.knowledgebank.irri.org
Courier address: Suite 1009, Security Bank Center
6776 Ayala Avenue, Makati City, Philippines
Tel. +63 (2) 891-1236, 891-1303
Fax: + 63 (2) 891-1174

ISSN 1607-7776
L P
2008 No. 13

Seed Health Improvement

for Pest Management and
Crop Production

Edited by T.W. Mew and M. Hossain

Papers presented at the technical sessions

of the Final Workshop on the Rice Seed Health
Improvement Project, Dhaka, Bangladesh


II
Contents

Quality rice seed for reducing yield gaps and improving 1

food security: the results of the Seed Health Improvement
Project in Bangladesh
M. Hossain

SHIP―a different approach in doing research 7

T.W. Mew, F. Elazegui, M. Hossain, C. Diaz, G. A. Fakir, and T. Mia

The quality of farmer-saved rice seeds in Bangladesh 12

G.A. Fakir and M.A. Taher Mia

Quality of rice seeds in Bangladesh and effects on yield and pest pressure: 36
results of farmer participatory experiments
M. Hossain, C. Diaz, F. Elazegui, and T. Mew

Improved methods of seed production, drying and preservation at the 46

farmers’ level
M.A. Taher Mia, J.A. Begum, S.M.A Haque, S.M.M. Rahman, A. Rahman, C, Diaz,
F. Elazegui, and T.W. Mew

Standardization of quality measurement of rice seed: 58

how far is impurity acceptable?
T. W. Mew

Upscaling of seed health technologies 62

A.K.M. Zakaria

Rice seed management in Bangladesh: a study of farmers’ knowledge and 69

practice
M. Hossain, C. Diaz, M.L. Bose, and T.W. Mew

Seeds for survival: an impact assessment of the Seed Health Improvement 78

Project (SHIP) in Bangladesh
A. Bayes, M.L. Bose, and A. Chowdhury

III
IV
Quality rice seed for reducing yield gaps and improving food
security: the results of the Seed Health Improvement
Project in Bangladesh
Mahabub Hossain

Bangladesh has made respectable progress in
the production of rice, despite the declining
availability of arable land and an agrarian
structure dominated by small and marginal
farmers. Rice production has more than
doubled over the last three decades, keeping
in pace with the growth of population. More
than 80% of the growth came from increases
in yields made possible through the adoption
of high-yielding modern varieties. The growth
has contributed to keeping rice prices within
affordable limits of the rural and urban
poor. The low price of rice was a major factor
behind the moderate reduction in poverty that
Bangladesh has experienced since the early
1980s.
The technological progress in rice culti-
vation has merely bought time against the race
between population growth and supply of food
(Fig. 1). For most of the time during the last
four decades, the domestic production of food
was lower than the population growth-induced
upward trend in demand. Except in 1993-94
and 2000-01, domestic rice production has never
been adequate to meet the country’s domestic
needs. Rice imports have continued, although
the volume has varied from year to year,
depending on the harvest. At the same time,
the import bill for other food items has been
swelling. There is a dire need to sustain growth
growing population. But the easy means of
increasing production have already been
exploited. The groundwater resource for
irrigation has been overutilized. The adoption
of modern high-yielding varieties is already
complete in all lands that are technically
suitable. There is downward pressure on yield
due to the deterioration in soil fertility, caused
by unbalanced use of chemical fertilizers.
Scientists have been working to produce a new
generation of modern varieties with higher
yield potential, such as “super rice” and hybrid
rice. But progress in the development and
diffusion of these new-generation varieties has
remained slow.
The farm-level yield of existing modern
varieties is, however, still low compared with
their potential. There is also a large gap in
yield between the enterprising and the average
farmer. Rice production could be increased
further if we can reduce the yield gap through
improved crop management practices.
How much production could be increased
by reducing the yield gap is, however, a
��������������
���
���������
��� ����������
�����
���
����������

in rice productivity, so that land and other ���

resources could be diverted to agricultural
���
diversification.
We cannot be complacent with the past ��
achievement. Time is again running out. In �
spite of the success in population control,
��
��
��
��

��
��
��

��
��

��
��
��

��

��
��

��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��

Bangladesh is still adding two million people ����

every year. We need an additional production Fig. 1. Balance between population growth and rice production,
of 300,000 t of rice every year to feed this 1960-2003.


debatable issue. Rice breeders state that the
yield potential of existing varieties is 10 t ha–1.
In Bangladesh, the average yield has reached
only 3.6 t ha–1. For modern varieties, the yield
is 3.7 t ha–1 for the aman season and 5.0 t
ha–1 for the boro season. However, we shall be
mistaken if we conclude from this information
that Bangladesh has a large yield gap, and that
we can feed the additional people by focusing
only on reducing the yield gap. The present
rice yield in Bangladesh is higher than those
in India, Pakistan, Nepal, Thailand, Myanmar,
Cambodia and Laos, and close to those in
Vietnam and Indonesia.
Many factors account for the difference
between yield potential of varieties and actual
farm yield (Fig. 2). The first yield gap–for
which we cannot do anything–exists because
of environmental factors that hinder some
components of experiment-station technologies
to be transferable to farmers’ fields. The
maximum attainable yield is always lower than
the yield potential. It is further lower in the
tropics than in the temperate zone. The second
yield gap is attributable to two elements: a)
biological nature of production that includes
physical environment, such as moisture
availability, soil fertility, crop loss from pests,
etc.; and b) socioeconomic characteristics
of farmers, such as input-output prices,
availability of credit that determines input use,
and variations in crop management practices.
������� ����
���������� ���������
������������� ����������
Fig. 2. The concept of yield gaps.

It is reported that about 20% of the yield is
lost every year because of pests and climatic
constraints. Also, the farmer will use inputs
at a lower rate than will a scientist because
the farmer has to pay for inputs, while the
scientist gets them free. In economic jargon, the
“economically optimum” yield is always lower
than the “technically optimum” yield.
However, there is no denying the fact that
there is still some yield gap in Bangladesh
that could be reduced with improved crop
management practices. The average yield
gap could be about 0.9 t ha–1 for boro and 1.3
t ha–1 for aman (Table 1). If this gap could
be eliminated, rough rice production can be
increased by an additional 7.5 million t every
year, which is about 20% of current production.
The basic premise of the Seed Health
Improvement Subproject (SHIP) commissioned
under the Poverty Elimination Through Rice
Research Assistance (funded by Department for
International Development) was that the use of
substandard seeds is a major contributory factor
to the existing yield gap. The farm-household
survey, conducted under the project, found
Table 1. The yield gap for popular rice varieties, 2003.
Rice variety Experiment Best farmers’ Average farm Yield gap
station yield yield yield
BR11 5.0 4.5 3.7 1.3
BRRI Dhan 28 6.0 5.5 5.2 0.8
BRRI Dhan 29 6.5 6.0 5.5 1.0
��������������������������
�������������������������������
����������������������
���������
�������
������������������������
����������� �����������������������������
�������
��������
�������������������������
���������������������������
��������
���������������������
������ �����������
���������� ������������
������������������
��������
that nearly 80% of the rice seeds planted in
Bangladesh are kept from farmers’ own harvest,
another 10% are exchanged or purchased from
neighbors who also keep seeds from harvest,
and the remaining 10% are purchased from
BADC, NGOs, and private seed companies
(Table 2). In the absence of knowledge of
technologies for production, drying, and
preservation of seeds, the widespread practice
of farmer-saved seeds is bound to produce
suboptimal yield. Proper selection, drying, and
preservation of seeds are critical management
practices that can substantially reduce the yield
gap.
The SHIP was initiated to a) assess the
quality of farmer-saved seeds; b) estimate yield
gains that could be achieved by using quality
seeds; c) provide training to women farmers
on improved methods of selection, drying,
and preservation of seeds; and d) enhance the
capacity of BRRI to conduct research on seed
quality by strengthening its seed pathology
laboratory. It was the largest subproject of
PETRRA with an investment of 1.7 million
pound sterling over a period of 5 yr (1999-2004).
The subproject was implemented by IRRI in
seven sites representing major agroecological
zones, in close collaboration with BRRI, BAU,
Rural Development Academy, Bogra, and
several NGOs –Bangladesh Rural Advancement
Committee, PROSHIKA, Cooperative for
Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE),
Grameen Krishi Foundation, and WAVE.
The project used a farmer-participatory
research approach to stimulate curiosity and
Table 2. Sources of rice seeds planted by Bangladesh farmers, 1999
and 2004.
Source 1999 survey 2004 survey
Own stock 79.8 79.3
Exchanged with neighbors 3.7 2.6
Purchased from neighbors 7.0 6.7
Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation 6.6 3.9
Nongovernment organizations 0.3 3.0
Seed companies 2.6 4.4
Source: Farm household surveys,1999 and 2004.
interest on scientific methods of seed quality
management and to win the trust needed
to facilitate the extension of the technology.
Before the farmer-participatory experiment,
a baseline survey was conducted to study
farmers’ knowledge, perceptions, and practices
on seed health and seed quality issues. For each
of the seven sites, 80 sample households were
interviewed using a structured questionnaire.
One kilogram of seed from the stock, kept for
planting in the next boro season, was collected
from each of them. These seeds were tested
for quality assessment in the seed pathology
laboratories of BAU and BRRI. The poor
seeds were removed and the cleaned seeds
were returned to the farmers for use in the
experiment to assess seed quality.
Thirty farmers from each village, who
volunteered to participate in the experiment
without any compensation, conducted
the experiment in their own fields for the
subsequent three boro and two aman seasons
over 2000-03. The farmers planted the cleaned
seed in a portion of a selected parcel. In the
adjacent portion of the same parcel, they
planted their own seeds. The same parcel was
used in the experiment to dissociate the effect of
other factors such as soil quality, land level, and
access to irrigation. The farmers were advised
to use normal management practices for both
portions of the parcel. The only difference
was the use of the cleaned seed. Researchers
recorded data on crop growth parameters at
four stages and measured the yield through
crop-cutting. The farmers soon became
convinced of the inferior quality of their saved
seeds as they found fewer insect pests and
weeds, less diseases, and more vigorous plant
growth in the cleaned seed plot. Although the
difference in yield between the two plots varied
from site to site, depending on the quality of
the farmer-saved seeds, the average yield gain
for the seven sites was estimated at 467 kg ha–1
for the aman season and 555 kg ha–1 for the
boro season. In the farmer’s seed plot, yield was

estimated at 3.8 t ha–1 for aman and 5.1 t ha–1
for boro. Thus, the gain from the use of cleaned
seeds was estimated to be 11-12% of the farm-
level yield.
Once farmers were convinced of the gains
to be reaped from the use of quality seeds,
the next challenge was how to facilitate their
access to these. Hand cleaning of farmer-saved
seed was found to be not economical. The
government has been trying to extend the
market for quality seeds by motivating the
private sector to go into the rice seed business.
But many problems still have to be tackled,
including establishing collaboration between
seed companies and public-sector research
institutions and ensuring the quality of the
seed marketed by the private sector. Also,
seed is a critical resource that farmers want to
keep under control, particularly for staple food
crops. The survey likewise showed farmers’
perceptions of the seed market not being highly
reliable in supplying quality seed of required
varieties at the proper time. A more effective
way to increase the supply of quality seed
would then be to train rice farmers as seed
entrepreneurs.
Therefore, in the second phase, SHIP
focused on enhancing the knowledge of
participating farmers on improved methods
of seed selection, drying, and preservation to
enable them to become quality-seed producers.
The farmers who participated in the experiment
in the previous phase were advised to a) use
markers in selected portions of the field, which
would be harvested separately for seeds; b)
practice roughing off the fields, to clear weeds
and off-types; and c) use portable tables for
drying. They also experimented with the use
of plastic drums and painted earthen motkas
with different types of additives to preserve
the seeds. With these simple experiments, the
farmers saw for themselves the improvement
in quality of their own seeds. Being assured of
quality, they started using lower seed rates in
rice production and they began selling seeds to
neighbors. The project also enabled the farmer

participants to train other farmers in the village
and to support local extension officials and
NGOs in training a larger number of farmers
on seed management technologies. At the end
of the project, nearly 14,000 farmers had been
trained on seed health management.
After the project, a survey was conducted
to evaluate impact. A random sample of
participating farmers was compared with a
control group with regard to seed management
practices. The survey also collected information
on yield, input use, and cost and returns in rice
cultivation of participating farmers and the
control group. It was found that the farmers
trained under SHIP had 25% lower seed rate
than the control group. But the savings on
account of seeds was only 19%, as the trained
farmers used high-priced, higher quality seeds
(Table 3). The use of high-quality seed also
helped reduce pest and weed pressure. Only
38% of the trained farmers used pesticides
compared with 62% in the control group. The
cost of pesticides per hectare was reduced by
half. Cost savings on account of seeds and
pesticides was Tk 310 ha–1. The substantial
benefit was, however, on account of the increase
in yield. The rice yield of the trained farmers
was higher by 0.7 t ha–1 for the aman season
and by 0.43 t ha–1 for the boro season (Table 4).
The income from rice cultivation was higher by
about Tk 7200 in the aman season and by Tk
4400 in the boro season.
A production function analysis showed
that, after accounting for the difference in
input use, the farmers who participated in the
project obtained higher yields (by 453 kg of
Table 3. Impact of knowledge of seed management technology on
seed and pesticide use.
Item Participating Control Percent
farmers farmers difference
Seed rate (kg ha–1) 50 66 -25
Seed cost (Tk ha–1) 662 736 -10
Seed price (Tk kg–1) 13.24 11.15 19
Farmers’ using pesticides (%) 38.4 61.8 -38
Pesticide cost (Tk ha–1) 239 475 -50
Source: Household survey for impact assessment of SHIP.
paddy ha–1) than the control group. If quality
seed had been used in the 7 million ha of rice
land in Bangladesh on which modern varieties
are grown, annual paddy production could
be increased by an additional 3.2 million. The
additional production could feed 12.7 million
people at the current rate of per capita rice
Table 4. Effect of knowledge of seed management on rice yield, unit
cost, and farm profits.
Item Participating Control Difference
farms farms
Yield (t ha–1)
Aman 4.10 3.40 0.70
Boro 5.72 5.29 0.43
Unit cost (Tk t–1)
Aman 4,321 5,643 -1322
Boro 4,975 5,495 -520
Operating surplus (Tk ha–1)
Aman 21,384 14,188 7,160
Boro 23,225 18,843 4,382
Source: Household survey for impact assessment of SHIP.
consumption. Thus, the adoption of seed
quality management technology itself can
supply rice for the growing population for
another 7 yr.
The adoption of the technology would be
too slow if we only depend on the participating
farmers and the NGOs for knowledge
dissemination. We hope that the Department of
Agricultural Extension (DAE) and BADC would
take up the task of extending the technologies
under their normal development programs. We
have done a “back of the envelope” calculation
of the rate of return on investment for a possible
project that DAE could take up for the extension
of the seed quality management technology
(Table 5). It is assumed that under the project,
DAE will train 20,800 resource-poor farmers (as
seed entrepreneurs) and 1,500 block supervisors
each year, for a period of 5 yr, a target to cover
50% of the HYV area under quality seeds. The
project will cover four farmers each from 26,000
villages; this would be enough to meet the seed

Table 5. Estimated rate of return of investment for seed quality management extension.

Year Discounted Investment Cost for Additional Discount Benefits Discounted

value at cost on extension output of rice value of cost (US$ million) value of benefits
10% research (US$ (000) (US$ million)
(US$ million) million)

0 1.00 0.40 - 0.40
1 0.909 1.00 - 0.91
2 0.826 0.40 - 0.33
3 0.751 0.50 - 0.37
4 0.683 0.70 8 1.9 0.47 1.29
5 0.621 3.30 170 40.8 2.04 25.33
6 0.564 3.30 228 54.7 1.86 30.85
7 0.513 3.30 456 109.4 1.69 56.12
8 0.467 3.30 684 164.2 1.54 76.68
9 0.424 3.30 912 218.8 1.39 92.77
10 0.386 912 218.8 84.45
11 0.351 912 218.8 76.79
12 0.318 912 218.8 69.57
13 0.289 912 218.8 63.23
14 0.262 912 218.8 57.32
15 0.238 912 218.8 52.07
Total 3.00 16.50 7930 1903 11.00 686

Benefit-cost ratio (US$686 million ÷ US$11.00 million) = 62.4

Assumptions:
• Each year 20,800 resource-poor farmers and 1,500 block supervisors will be trained on seed quality management technologies
(5 yr).
• At full development, the project will cover 26,000 villages with a target of producing quality seeds on 1.6 ha per village, enough
to meet the seed needs of the boro and aman crops in the village.
• At full development, the project will contribute to an additional 0.91 million t of rice, valued at US$219 million.


needs of all the aman and boro HYV land for
these areas. The cost of the project is generously
estimated at US$3.3 million (Tk 20 crore) a year.
At full development the project will contribute
to an additional 0.91 million of milled rice
valued at US$219 million (Tk 1400 crore).
Assuming a life of 15 yr (including the 5-yr
research phase) and a discount rate of 10%, the
project would yield a benefit-cost ratio of 62:1.
This simple calculation indicates that it would
indeed be an extremely high-return project.


SHIP–a different approach in doing research
T.W. Mew, F. Elazegui, M. Hossain, C. Diaz, G. A. Fakir, and T. Mia
The Seed Health Improvement Subproject
(SHIP) is a research project. We did not
envision SHIP to be an extension project. It
is not designed to extend research results
to farmers immediately. However, through
farmer-participatory experiments, we wanted to
assess how far and how fast these results would
reach both participating and nonparticipating
farmers. As we assess the impact of SHIP
today, it is a great and pleasant surprise to see
that the research results of SHIP have reached
so many farmers in so many sites. This is
beyond our expectation. As a research project,
we are interested in how the experiments are
conducted and how data are generated. We do
want to emphasize our interest in the process
of research through the different experiments
conducted under the project. SHIP, as we assess
the research conducted at this juncture, offers
a different approach in doing things. When
we designed the research, we have tried from
the very beginning to offer a different way of
doing research—not the conventional approach
where we focus on one problem or one issue at
a time. By focusing on a single issue or problem
in rice pest management, we solve one problem,
but other problems remain. With one problem
solved, it is very common, after generating
enough information, that we ask what we do
next. How are we going to use the information
to solve the problem? This could be fine if the
problem were that simple. Unfortunately, if we
take all of the farmers’ concerns into account
in looking for solutions to rice production
problems, we realize that farmers do not
consider one issue at a time. They incorporate
all possible problems into the rice farming
operation. As to problems related to seed health
improvement, a single solution is not enough.
We have to take the total or systems approach.
There is more than one problem associated with
the issue of why farmers used suboptimal seed
for crop production. This was not the case years
ago.
Seed pathology and seed health
As a research project, the idea started from seed
pathology, which is part of seed health. Why
seed pathology and what is its relation to seed
health? Seed, like any other organ of a plant, is
attacked by many pathogens. Pathogens cause
diseases. At the outset, a plant pathologist’s
interest in seed health is built around seedborne
diseases or pathogens. Conceptually, in our
research, there are two important terms: seed
pathology and seed health. In the literature,
seed pathology and seed health are often used
interchangeably. In real terms, their meanings
are quite different. In SHIP, operationally, we
have tried to dissociate one from the other.
Seed pathology is the science of seedborne
pathogens (the rice seed carries more than 80
different pathogens). Seed health, on the other
hand, is the health status of a seed lot, like
the farmer-saved seed for planting. In crop
production, the concern is the health status
of the seed, which includes the seedborne
pathogen component. For instance, the farmer-
saved seed used in planting, regardless of
health status, can be considered in terms of
seedborne pathogens. The real issue though
is seed health. So, in the case of SHIP, seed
health refers to the total health status of a seed
lot for planting, which involves both seed
health conditions and seed contaminants. In
other words, seed health has two components:
a) the health conditions (whether seed has
discoloration, is well developed, filled or

unfilled) and b) the seed contaminants (do
seeds for planting contain weed seeds; seeds
of other varieties; other inert materials such
as plant debris, soil particles, sclerotia of a
pathogen, etc.).
In effect, health conditions and seed
contaminants are very important determinants
of the seed health status of the seed lot. In
terms of seedborne pathogens, there could
be more than one pathogen and the number
(technically, the inoculum) may vary. They may
or may not cause seedborne diseases in the
same magnitude. Therefore, when we discuss
seed health issues, the disease is always hidden
and integrated in the whole concept. This is
an important consideration in dealing with the
idea of seed health.
Managing seed quality through seed
health improvement
Managing rice diseases through seed health
improvement is another conceptual thinking
in plant pathology. Seedborne pathogens
may or may not have an immediate effect on
the quality of the seed. However, if quality
is improved, the level of inoculum (inoculum
potential) and the number of pathogens can be
reduced. If farmers decide to plant only high-
quality seed, it means the potential to introduce
the pathogens carried by the seed into the
field—which may manifest as diseases causing
damage to the rice crop—is also minimized.
Therefore, to improve farmer crop production
through use of high-quality seed, pest
management becomes a hidden component.
This hidden component proves to be crucial as
there are a large number of pests carried by and
introduced through seed. Some ask, “Where is
pest management in SHIP? “ Accordingly, in
SHIP, we assist farmers in using quality seed
not only for crop production but also for pest
management. We have taken the total seed
health approach on crop and pest management.
Our experience of taking the total seed
health approach to manage seedborne diseases
and to address crop production and pest
management problems—by using high-quality
seed for planting—has produced dramatic
results. Farmers, extension specialists, and

policymakers easily understood the concept.
Removing poor seeds actually minimized
the seedborne inoculum, thereby reducing
the risk of introducing seedborne pathogens.
The idea is based on the hypothesis that “crop
management, whether for pest or crop, can be
distinguished from using good-quality seed for
planting.”
Quality seed and sustainable crop production
The productivity of modern varieties can
neither be sustained nor their genetic potential
achieved if the seed for planting gradually
declines in quality. This is exactly what rice
farmers in tropical Asia have experienced in
rice production since the late 70s. In practical
rice farming, we need a holistic approach to
crop production where pest (or disease and
weed) management is only a component. Seed
health, therefore, is a vital component of crop
and pest management.
The relation of planting quality seed
to sustainable crop production is seldom
recognized. Too often, that the seed is the
foundation of modern rice production is
forgotten. Without quality seed, farmers cannot
realize the genetic potential of improved
varieties. Using high-quality seed for planting
reduces the potential damage caused by pests
and other contaminants, as demonstrated in
farmers’ experiments. SHIP has demonstrated
further that, through planting of quality seed,
farmers have achieved a 10% (or more) yield
increase and reduction in pesticide (including
herbicide) use and seeding rate. Surveys,
indicated a growing number of farmers who
became entrepreneurs, producing or selling
quality seedlings to other farmers and thus
generating income. Some farmers even offered
to train other farmers within the village or in
nearby villages. Through SHIP, we have shown
the impact of planting quality seed on crop
production and pest management in real terms.
Seed health improvement and pest
management
Still we have not asked the question, “Why
is there a need to improve the quality of
farmer seed for planting?” Previous surveys
in tropical Asia indicated an extensive loss of
rice yield and grain quality due to the use of
farmer-saved seed for planting. As a result,
farmers change their seed very often. This
could be attributed to lack of awareness of the
importance of knowledge on quality seed for
crop production and pest management. To
prove the point, experiments conducted in
the Philippines in the early 90s demonstrated
yield gain upon using improved farmer-own-
saved seed. Not only did we assess the extent
of problems related to farmer-saved seed; we
also looked at the farmers’ seed management
practices and their methods and conditions
of seed storage. Many seed problems were
related to both seed quality conditions and
methods of seed storage. During the research,
we identified the limitations and constraints
related to farmer seed storage and the areas
the seed. What was the difference in what
we have tried to do in SHIP? It is in the use
of an integrated approach instead of doing
research on individual problems. We started
from identifying the problems; we then set
out to identify and involve the stakeholders.
We established the impact zone on what we
would hope the research results would achieve
to improve rice production and increase the
income of rice farmers.
How would this happen? The farmers’
rice production problems are intertwined,
not separated as individual problems (which
are the kind researchers deal with) (Fig. 2).
Farmers do not see the problem individually
Table 1. Effect of seed quality on yield in a farmer participatory trial
Guimba, Nueva Ecija, 1996 WS and 1997 DS (Diaz et al 1997).
Cases (no.) Yield (t ha–1)

of improvement. The storage conditions and 96 WS 97 WS 96 WS 97 DS

containers used by farmers were not very
desirable, resulting in deterioration of seed
quality. Farmers in Bangladesh store seeds for
6-9 mo before planting.
High-quality IR64 seed 30 30 4.26 6.10
Farmer-grown IR64 seed 30 30 3.47 5.17
Difference 0.79 0.93
t-value 2.89a 3.02*

In farmer participatory experiments in the a

Significant at the 1% level.
Philippines, we compared the effect of seed
quality on rice yield (Table 1). We looked at the ����������� ����������� ������������

effect of high-quality seed and farmers’ seed on

the yield of IR64. The yield increase was about ���������������
����
������������
������������
�������������
���������������
1 t of rough rice. �������������� ����������
����������
�������������
�������������
The conceptual framework of SHIP is given �������

in Figure 1. For many years, our research has

focused on crop. To have a good crop, we need ���� ���������
���������� �������������
to start with a good seed. The importance of ����������
seed in crop production and pest management ������������
has not been given much attention in modern ������������

rice production. A healthy seed produces a �����������������

good crop; a good crop results in good harvest. Fig. 1. Improving farmer’s seed health practices for crop production
Those parameters are interrelated and should and pest management.

not be separated. ��������������������������������

����������
������������������������
What makes SHIP different? �������������
The goal of the SHIP is to improve the �����������������
quality of farmer-saved seed for planting and ������������������������

therefore increase farmers’ income from rice ���������������������

���������������������� �����������
production. Through seed health and grain ��������������������� ����������������
quality management, the technology efficiency
gap in rice production is closed. The farmers
������������������������������������������
are trained to manage their own resource,
Fig. 2. Farmers’ problems are intertwined.

as scientists see it. When we see the seed, we
see discolored seeds. Scientists know that
brown spot, sheath rot, and many others may
cause seed discoloration. Farmers experience
however, declining productivity of their seed.
Farmer’s perceived production problems may
include poor seed germination and they may
decide to increase the seeding rate to improve
the situation. When pest pressure is high in
the field, they may decide to use pesticides to
control the problem. However, some of these
actions may result in increased input use.
To solve this type of production problems,
it is necessary to understand farmers’ beliefs
and practices. Involving farmers early on in the
research process will help achieve the impact
that we envisaged–i.e., improving the livelihood
of resource-poor farmers. Equally important is
working with different partners who have the
expertise needed in doing the research. We thus
emphasize integration. Integration needs to be
done with the right partners at the right site,
the lighthouse site. A lighthouse site is where
all partners work together with the common
objective of generating the needed information.
Research coordination is an important element
in achieving integration. From the lighthouse
site, useful information are generated,
synthesized, and disseminated to other sites.
Who are the partners of SHIP?
Many partners are involved in SHIP. Figure
3 shows the major partner institutions under
SHIP– International Rice Research Institute,
Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, and Centre
for Agriculture Biosciences International (UK).
What is noteworthy is the fact that, once the
problem is identified, no individual scientist or
individual institution could launch a project of
this complexity to achieve the impact identified
in such a short time frame. As we see it, the
success of SHIP at this stage is brought about
by the ability to take advantage of the diverse
expertise that each participating scientist and
each institution have offered and to integrate
these to achieve the research objective (Fig. 4).
The SHIP approach
The whole research process starts with defining
the impact zone. The problem associated with
potential problems must be clearly identified
and analyzed properly. The second step
is building the research team by having a
stakeholder analysis and getting them involved.
In our project, we worked with NGOs, GOs,
and local farming communities to achieve our
goal. As a research project, the third important
consideration is the research process itself.
SHIP takes a participatory approach to engage
farmers from key sites and other partners with
the required expertise. During the first phase,
SHIP focused on the assessment of farmers’
seed management practices, and demonstrated,
through farmer participatory experiments, the
effect of improved seed quality on pest pressure
and rice yield. In farmers’ fields planted with
high-quality seeds, pest pressure caused by
weeds, insects, and diseases was reduced.
Hand weeding was also reduced two to three
times due to high seedling vigor. With high-
quality seed, yield increased by 5-20%. Since
the farmers participated in the research, they
were easily convinced to use high-quality seed
for planting because they knew they would

���������������������������������������
������

���������������������� ������������������������������ ���������������������������

���������������������
���������������������
�����������������������������
�����������������������������
���������������������
��������������������������������
�������������������
�����������������������
�������������������������������
��������������������������
�����������������������
��������������������
��������������������������

Fig. 3. Partner institutions of SHIP.

10
 Fig. 4. SHIP sites in Bangladesh with respective NGOs/government institutions indicated (agroecological zones shown).
obtain a good crop and a better harvest. The
researchers have helped achieve the impact.
Concluding remarks
What have we learned from SHIP as a research
project? SHIP, as a subproject of PETRRA,
has demonstrated how the continuum from
research through technology development to
dissemination can be seamlessly traversed in
an integrated manner. This can be done since
we have thought the process through and have
put together all the different issues related to
quality seed for farmer crop production and
pest management. What made SHIP different
from many others were the strategic design
and well-coordinated project management.
Identifying the right problems to be solved at
the right sites with the right partners is critical
to the success of SHIP.
The assembly of an interdisciplinary team
to tackle different aspects of the problem is
another positive feature of SHIP. No individual
scientist can have all the expertise needed
to look into the problems. There is a need to
involve different institutions, including NGOs
and GOs, that take on the different roles in the
research-development-dissemination nexus,
bringing about farmer-to-farmer diffusion for
better community ownership of the knowledge.
All those who are involved own the project and
engage in knowledge sharing. We are only a
part of it. Have we achieved what we set out to
do? Yes, we believe we have.
11
The quality of farmer-saved rice seeds in bangladesh
Golam Ali Fakir and M.A. Taher Mia
Rice is the most important staple food crop of
Bangladesh. Approximately 75% of the total
cultivated land (about 10 million ha) is under
rice cultivation. Total annual rice production is
approximately 25 million t (BBS 2002). Although
the country has reportedly attained self-
sufficiency in food production, there is always
a food deficit of around 2 million t almost
every year. Besides, the population growth rate
remains high—1.48% per annum. Moreover, the
area for rice production has been decreasing
markedly every year for various reasons. Thus,
although rice production is nearly enough for
about 140 million people, this amount will
not be adequate for the rapidly increasing
population of the country. As rice supplies
more than 80% of the total food requirement
of the country to avert food deficit, production
of rice must be increased manyfold. But per-
hectare yield of rice in Bangladesh is very low,
the national average being only 2.47 t ha–1 (BBS
2002). In South Korea, the yield is about 4.5 t ha–
1
. The world average yield of rice (3.75 t ha–1) is
even higher than that in Bangladesh (FAO 1999).
Therefore, rice production in Bangladesh needs
improvement to feed the teeming millions in
years to come.
Status of quality rice seed production
Use of quality seed is critical in increasing
rice production. But the quality of rice seed
in Bangladesh is quite poor. Of the total rice
seed requirement in the country, only 10-12%
certified or truthfully labeled seeds are used.
These seeds are produced by the Bangladesh
Agricultural Development Corporation and
other seed companies. They are regarded
good-quality seeds but quality is judged
only on the basis of purity and germination;
the health of the seed is not considered.
12
Around 90% of the rice seeds are produced
by farmers. Traditionally, farmers grow rice
for consumption or commercial purposes and
save a portion for use as seed. Such farmer-
saved seed is never tested for quality—thus
quality is not known. Experience has shown
that seed quality was poor—admixtures and
various contaminants are present in their seeds.
Abnormal seeds are also quite common among
farmer-saved seeds. Preliminary research by
the Seed Pathology Laboratory (SPL) of the
Bangladesh Agricultural University (BAU) in
Mymensingh also showed that the quality of
farmer-saved seed is quite poor. They have
low germination and they carry dangerous
seedborne pathogens (Fakir 1998), indicators
of poor seed health. Similar observations have
also been made by plant pathologists of BRRI
(Rahman and Mia 1998). There is thus a great
need for a comprehensive research to improve
seed health and quality of farmer-saved rice
seeds.
Seed quality: seed health
Seed is the most important input in crop
production. There is no alternative for quality
seed to increase production. Good seed means
good crop. Good quality seed must at least have
a) high yield potential, b) viability, c) purity
(free from varietal mixture), and d) good
health (free from infection by pathogens or has
maximum tolerance for infection by a given
pathogen in a given seed lot).
Of these major characteristics of a good seed,
freedom from pathogens is crucial. Even a pure
and viable seed of a high-yielding variety is of
little or no use if it is infected or contaminated
by dangerous pathogens.
Importance of seedborne diseases
and seed health of rice
Seedborne diseases.
Seedborne diseases and poor seed quality are
among the various constraints to productivity of
rice in Bangladesh. There are 43 diseases known
to occur in rice, 27 of which are seedborne. Of
the seedborne diseases, 22 are caused by fungi,
3 by bacteria, and 2 by nematodes (Fakir 1999).
The most destructive fungal diseases are brown
spot (Bipolaris oryzae), blast (Pyricularia grisea),
sheath rot (Sarocladium oryzae), sheath blight
(Rhizoctonia solani); leaf scald (Microdochium
oryzae); seed rot and seedling blight (Bipolaris
oyrzae, Sclerotium rolfsii, and Fusarium spp.);
and grain spot (Bipolaris oyrzae, Curvularia
lunata, Nigrospora oryzae, Phoma glumarum, and
Cladosporium sp.). Likewise, bacterial leaf blight
caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. oryzae
and bacterial leaf streak caused by Xanthomonas
campestris pv. oryzicola do much damage to
rice. These fungal and bacterial diseases cause
moderate to heavy yield losses and also affect
the quality of rice seed. White tip caused by
Aphelencoides besseyi also interferes with rice
production. There is no accurate estimate
about rice production losses brought about by
seedborne diseases, but some experts say that it
is roughly 10% annually. This is approximately
2.5 million t of rice worth Tk 30,000 million
(Fakir 2004).
Seed health
Rice seeds in all phases of growth in the field
can be infected by different seedborne diseases
caused by fungal, bacterial, and nematode
pathogens. The dormant condition of the seed
enables these pathogens to survive in it. In fact,
the pathogens remain alive in the seed, even
after harvest and in storage under dormant
conditions as long as the seed is viable. These
pathogens are microscopic and their presence
in or on the seeds cannot be seen with the
naked eye. However, infected rice may be
recognized by observing various kinds of
spots/lesions or discoloration, deformation, and
other abnormalities. Propagules of different
pathogens present in the dust/soil particles
and infected crop debris (inert matter) may
also be mixed with seeds in a given seed lot
during harvesting, winnowing, and storage.
The presence of insects, weed seeds, and seeds
of other rice varieties or other crops is also
not hygienic for the seed lot. Rice seeds can be
affected by seedborne pathogens or they can
carry pathogens as contaminants.
Infected or unhealthy rice seeds
Rice production is affected by unhealthy rice
seeds in the following ways:
• Infected rice seeds may fail to germinate or
young seedlings emerging from infected
seeds die after germination, resulting in
preemergence death, damping off, and
occurrence of seedling blight during
sprouting and in the seedbed.
• During transplanting, infected seedlings
taken from the seedbed cause diseases to
the rice plants growing in the field, thus
contributing to production losses.
• Storing rice seeds infected by storage insects
and fungi may also result in considerable
losses through direct injury/damage to the
seeds, reduced germination, and less market
value because of discoloration and mustiness
of seeds.
Rice seed health technology needed
An appropriate and sustainable technology
is needed to improve seed health and
quality of farmer-saved rice seed. Such a
technology can be developed by reducing or
eliminating the initial inocula of seedborne
pathogens, seed contaminants (destructive
insects, weed seeds), and abnormal seeds
(spotted, discolored, deformed) present in
farmer-saved seed; minimizing pest and
disease pressure on the growing crop; and
maintaining the quality of farmer-saved
seed in storage. But very few technologies
have been developed through research or are
available in the country to solve seed health-
related problems. Current technologies
such as treatment of seeds with seed
dressing chemicals and spraying growing
crops with fungicides cannot be advocated
because of the high cost and the attendant
health and environmental hazards. Stable
13
resistant varieties capable of producing
quality healthy seeds are also rare. Under
the circumstances, low-cost, environment-
friendly seed health technology can be of
great use to improve seed health and quality
of farmer-saved seed. The SPL, BAU, and
IRRI experiences showed that use of clean,
apparently healthy rice seed may increase
rice yield and production of quality seed
at the farmer’s level (Mew 1994, Doullah
et al 2000, Rahman et al 2000, Mathur et al
2002). Results obtained at SPL through a
pilot project research carried out in farmers’
fields showed that a 12-14% increase in rice
yield can be obtained by using only clean
seeds (Doullah et al 2000, Mathur et al 2002).
Further, health and quality of rice seed may
deteriorate in storage. Selected case studies
on storage of rice seeds show that quality
of farmers’ seed may worsen because of
improper storage practices (Miah and Fakir
1989, Rahman and Mia 1998).
In view of these, the Entomology and
Plant Pathology Division (EPPD) of IRRI
launched a Seed Health Improvement Sub
Project (SHIP) under PETRRA. Financed
by DfID, the research project involved
scientists/personnel of IRRI, BRRI, BAU,
and seven selected experimental stations in
Bangladesh.
This report deals with the following aspects
of seed health and quality of farmer-saved
rice seed: a) quality and seed health analysis
of farmer-saved rice seed obtained from seven
selected sites in Bangladesh representing the
major agroecological zones, and b) evaluation
of effect of clean and unclean rice seed on rice
yield.
Objectives
Broad objective
To develop appropriate technology for impro-
ving the quality of farmer-saved rice seed and to
assist in poverty elimination programs through
increased rice production by producing and
using high-quality healthy seed at the farm
level.
14
Specific objectives
• To determine the quality of farmer-saved rice
seed as affected by seed contaminants and
seed conditions.
• To study the germination potential of farmer-
saved seed.
• To assess seed health quality as affected by
infection of major selected pathogens.
• To study the effect of clean and unclean seed
on yield of rice at the farm level.
Materials and methods
Quality analysis of farmer-saved seed
Experimental sites. Seven experimental sites in
seven districts—Barisal, Bogra, Chuadanga,
Gazipur, Hobiganj, Rajshahi, and Rangpur,
representing the major agroecological zones of
Bangladesh—were selected to study the health
and quality status of farmer-saved rice seeds
through the Seed Health Improvement Sub-
Project (SHIP) under the Poverty Elimination
Through Rice Research Assistance (PETRRA)
Project (Fig. 1). Under each site or district, two
to four upazilas were chosen and under each
upazila, one to two village (s) were selected. A
total of 28 villages under 23 upazilas from the
seven sites were included in the seed quality
analysis (Table 1). The seeds coming from
Barisal, Chuadanga, Gazipur, and Hobiganj
were analyzed by the Division of Plant
Pathology of BRRI; the rest of the seeds were
tested by the SPL of BAU.
Selection of farmers. Twenty farmers were
randomly selected from each village; altogether,
560 farmers representing seven sites for each
crop season were selected. There were 1,120
farmers who participated in test during the two
seasons, boro and T. aman. Of the 20 farmers, 10
had a landholding of < 1 ha, 6 had farms 1-2 ha,
and 4 had land > 1 ha.
Crop season. Rice seeds from the 1999-2000
boro and 2000 T. aman seasons were used for
the study. Seeds of boro rice were sown in the
seedbed in November 1999 and the crop was
harvested in April-May 2000. So the boro crop
thus raised was treated as boro 2000 in this
study. The seeds of T. aman rice were sown in
 Table 1. Upazilas and villages under seven selected experimen-
tal sites of the Seed Health Improvement Sub-Project (SHIP),
PETRRA.
Site Implementing Upazila Village
organization
Barisal Proshika Barisal sadar Sagardi
Babuganj Rakudia
Uzirpur Sanohar
Mehendiganj Balia
Bogra RDA Bogra sadar Maria Bishaborogacha
Kahalu Mirzapur Nizamotkuri
Sherpur
Nandigram
Chuadanga BRRI Chuadanga sadar Amirpur
Damurhuda Hatikata
Aramdanga
Hawli
Gazipur BRRI Sreepur Sreepur
Kapasia Maona
Pabur
Barun & Charbaria
Hobiganj BRAC Hobiganj sadar Phoil
Nabiganj Goyahary
Baniachong Amirkhani Kamalkhani
Fig. 1. Bangladesh map showing the seven exprimental sites.
Rajshahi CARE Puthia Palopara & Gopalthi
Durgapur Sreepur
June-July and harvested in November-December Tanore Gokul
2000. Mohanpur Pulsa
Rangpur GKF Rangpur sadar Binnatary
Variety used. Rice varieties currently grown Kawnia Bhagili
by the participating farmers were included in Mithapukur Serudanga
the present study. The most predominant among Taragonj Kachna

the improved varieties being used by farmers

were BRI, BR11, BR10, BR14, and IRATOM. In
some sites, different local varieties such as Parija
and China were also common.
Seeds used. Rice seeds saved by the farmers
from their own commercially grown crop were
used for the study.
Collection of seed samples. From each farmer,
1 kg of seed sample was collected from his
storage, removing the top 6 in of the seed about
2 mo before sowing in boro or T. aman season.
The samples were collected by the assigned
principal investigator (PI) or enumerator
following the International Rules for Seed
Testing (ISTA 1996). The samples were then sent
to DPP, BRRI or SPL, BAU. The seed samples
from boro and T. aman were received in the
two laboratories in August-September 1999 and
March-April 2000, respectively.
Preservation of seed samples. The seed samples
received by the BRRI and BAU laboratories were
immediately stored in a well-ventilated room
at room temperature after proper registration.
Special care was taken to protect seed samples
from rat damage. The samples were fumigated
with phostoxin to kill the associated insects. The
samples were then stored temporarily until they
were used for various analyses and tests.
Preparation of working sample. The 1-kg
seed samples received in the laboratory from
farmers at respective sites were used for the
determination of moisture content. Then, each
15
1-kg sample was divided into two portions: one
portion (500 g) was kept as original farmer-
saved seed and the other 500 g was used for
various analyses. sedimentation test. In this method, 2 × 10
Determination of moisture content. Moisture
content of the sample (1 kg) was determined by
an electric digital moisture meter and expressed
in percentage on wet-weight basis.
Cleaning of seeds. Cleaning of seeds by
manual physical seed sorting was done on
a clean laboratory table to separate out the
‘best’ (apparently healthy) seeds from the
original farmer-saved seeds. In doing so,
seed contaminants and abnormal seeds (seed
conditions) present in a 500-g working sample
of farmer-saved seeds were observed and
separated out from each working sample. The
seed contaminants separated and recorded
from each sample were as follows: weed seeds
species-wise, insects species-wise,rice varietal
mixture,partially filled grains,unfilled
grains,other plant parts,inert matter, and
seeds of other crop species.
The abnormal seed conditions observed were
discolored seeds, spotted seeds, deformed seeds,
insect damaged seeds, germinated seeds, and
seeds with smut.
Separation of contaminants and abnormal
looking seeds was done visually with unaided
eyes. The weed seeds and insects were counted,
by species, while the rest of the parameters were
recorded and expressed in percentage of seed
weight.
Detection of seedborne pathogenic fungi. Test
seed samples were analyzed for prevalence
of seedborne fungal pathogens following the
blotter method (ISTA 1996). A working sample
(200 seeds per sample) was used for the seed
health test. Five fungal pathogens—B. oryzae,
F. moniliforme, M. oryzae, P. grisea, and S. oryzae—
were the target pathogens for seed health
analysis. Results were expressed in percentage
of seedborne infection of the fungal pathogens
recorded.
16
Determination of Aphelenchoides besseyi
population. Incidence of white tip nematode A.
besseyi was determined by Baermann funnel
g seeds were used. Seeds were allowed to
germinate over a strainer for 5 d at > 25 °C. Five
to ten ml of the bottom sediment was examined
for the presence of adult and juvenile A. besseyi.
The number of nematodes was noted. In the
final calculation, records of juvenile and adult
nematodes were merged.
Determination of germination. Germination
of ‘best’ and original farmer-saved seeds in
natural soil was determined. Plastic trays were
used for the purpose. Four hundred seeds in
four replicates were used for the germination
test. Germination was recorded at 4, 7, and
14 d. Normal seedlings, abnormal seedlings
(including diseased seedlings), and dead seeds
were counted separately and expressed in
percentages.
Effect of clean and unclean seed on yield.
During 2000, 100 g of the best or clean seed
sorted out from farmer-saved seed by SPL, BAU
and DPP, BRRI were returned to 280 farmers to
grow along with their own seed. Observation
was made from seedling to maturity and yield
was determined following a crop cut. The
experiment was evaluated and it was felt that
farmers have to be trained to assess the quality
of their own seeds. From each site, 30 men and
30 women farmers were trained in identifying
different seed conditions and contaminants,
sorting out each category from the best quality
(apparently) healthy seed.
In 2001, farmer participatory experiments
were conducted in all seven sites with 210
farm families taking part. For this, each farmer
participant sorted out 1 kg of clean seed from
their saved seed and grew these as usual, along
with their own saved seed. A comparison of
seedling stand, seedling vigor, uniformity of
the crop, pest pressure, and grain yield was
made. All agronomic practices were similar in
both plots. Data from both clean and unclean
seed plots were recorded. From each plot, a 2
m × 3 m area was harvested at maturity stage
to determine yield (expressed in t ha–1 after
adjusting the moisture at 14%). In the present Percent moisture content
16
report, only the yield data have been included in
14
the results.
12

10
Statistical analysis Boro
T. aman
The recorded data on selected parameters 8

were statistically analyzed using the MSTAT 6

statistical package program. The test of 4

significance and analysis of variance, along with 2
the Duncan’s multiple range test (DMRT), were 0
done following Gomez and Gomez (1984).

ga

ur
a

r
al

nj

ah
gr

pu
ris

an

ip

ig a

jsh
Bo

ng
az
ad
Ba

ob

Ra

Ra
G
hu

H
C
Results Seed collection sites
Moisture content Fig. 2. Moisture content of farmer-saved rice seed.
The average moisture content of farmer-saved
boro and T. aman seeds obtained from the seven
selected sites varied significantly from 12.1 to Table 2. Seed contaminants recorded in farmer-saved boro rice
seeds.
15.1% and from 10.9 to 15.0%, respectively. In,
Seed Contaminants
general, boro rice had higher moisture content collection Insects (no.) Weed seed Varietal Othersa
than T. aman (Fig. 2). site (no.) mixture (%) (%)
Barisal 1.80 a 1.82 a 4.57 bc 1.44 b
Seed contaminants Bogra 107.20 f 116.8 f 3.86 ab 1.44 d
Seed contaminants seen among farmer-saved Chuadanga 20.10 cd 174.6 g 2.99 a 1.76 bc
boro and T. aman rice seeds are shown in Gazipur 19.00 c 18.90 c 3.99 ab 0.36 a
Tables 2-3 and Figures 3-14. Eight different Hobiganj 65.50 e 65.40 e 7.91 d 5.25 d
types of seed contaminants—insects, weed Rajshahi 21.60 d 21.80 d 5.91 c 5.64 d
seed, varietal mixture, other crop seeds, Rangpur 16.10 b 15.60 b 5.47 c 2.20 c
partially filled grains, unfilled grains, other Level of ** ** ** **
plant parts, and inert matter—were recorded significanceb

in farmer-saved seed. The occurrence of Include partially filled grains, unfilled grains, inert matter, other plant
a

parts, and other crop seeds. b** = 1% level of significance.

seed contaminants varied significantly
independently of each other, depending on
the nature of the contaminants, rice crop
Table 3. Seed contaminants recorded in farmer-saved T. aman
season, and site of seed collection. Among rice seeds.
seed contaminants, the most prevalent were Seed Contaminants
the insects, followed by weed seed and collection Insects (no.) Weed seed Varietal Othersa
site
varietal mixture. (no.) mixture (%) (%)
The six species of insects encountered Barisal 58.00 e 0.00 a 5.46 g 1.10 a
were rice moth (Corcyra cephalonica), rice Bogra 48.90 d 24.00 d 1.33 b 2.93 c

weevil (Sitophilus oryzae), red flour beetle Chuadanga 46.50 c 0.10 a 1.54 c 2.47 bc

(Tribolium casteneum), rice meal moth Gazipur 63.20 f 0.00 a 4.20 f 1.32 a

(Sitotroga cerealella), lesser grain borer Hobiganj 41.50 b 2.80 b 1.86 d 2.05 b
Rajshahi 22.70 a 31.00 e 0.78 a 2.97 c
(Rhyzopertha dominica), and saw-toothed beetle
Rangpur 78.88 g 14.50 c 2.10 e 5.02 d
(Oryzaephilus surinamensis). The abundance
Level of ** ** ** **
of insect population in terms of insect significanceb
species and seed collection site varied a
Include partially filled grains, unfilled grains, inert matter, other plant
significantly. The total and individual insect parts, and other crop seeds. b** = 1% level of significance.

17
 Fig. 3. Rice moth Corcyra cephalonica sorted out from farmer-saved rice seed.

Fig. 4. Rice weevil Sitophillus oryzae sorted out from farmer-saved rice seed.

18
Fig. 5. Red flour beetle (Tribolium casteneum) sorted out from farmer-saved rice seed.

Fig. 6. Lesser grain borer Rhyzopertha dominica sorted out from farmer-saved rice seed

19
 Fig. 7. Weed seed Echinochloa crus-galli sorted out from farmer-saved rice seed.

Fig. 8. Weed seed (Cyperus sp.) sorted out from farmer-saved rice seed.

20
Fig. 9. Rice varietal mixtures sorted out from farmer-saved rice seed.

Fig. 10. Other crop seeds sorted out from farmer-saved rice seed.

21
 Fig. 11. Partially filled grain sorted out from farmer-saved rice seed.

Fig. 12. Unfilled grain sorted out from farmer-saved rice seed.

22
Fig. 13. Other plant parts sorted out from farmer-saved rice seed.

Fig. 14. Inert matter sorted out from farmer-saved rice seed.

23
populations were much higher in boro seed
compared with T. aman seed.
Eight weed species—Cyperus sp. Echinochloa
crus-galli, E. colona, Scirpus sp., Paspalum sp.,
Dactylocterium aegyptium, Leptochloa chinensis,
and Fimbristylis sp.—were found in samples of
farmer-saved seeds of boro and T. aman. The
total and individual weed species obtained
from seven selected sites in both seasons varied
significantly with respect to weed species, seed
collection site, and crop season. During boro,
seed samples from all sites were contaminated
with seeds of one or more weed species. In
contrast, weed seeds were totally absent in
samples from Barisal and Gazipur, in T. aman
(Tables 2-3).
Varietal mixture characterized seed
samples in all sites and in both seasons, with
prevalence varying across sites and seasons.
The average mixture of other varieties with the
collected seed samples was highest at Habiganj
and lowest at Chuadanga in the boro season.
Fig. 15. ‘Spotted’ seed sorted out from farmer-saved rice seed.
24
However, with T. aman seeds, such mixture was
highest at Barisal and lowest at Rajshahi (Tables
2-3).
Abnormal seeds
Six types of abnormal seeds were recorded
in farmer-saved boro and T. aman rice seeds
from the seven sites—spotted seed (Fig. 15)
‘discolored’ seed (Fig. 16), ‘deformed’ seed (Fig.
17), ‘insect-damaged’ seed (Fig. 18) ‘germinated’
seed (Fig. 19), and ‘smutted’ seed (Fig. 20).
Prevalence differed significantly with site of
collection and crop season (Tables 4-5). Spotted
seed was predominant, followed by ‘discolored’
and ‘deformed’ seeds.
In boro, spotted and discolored seeds were
reportedly highest in Rajshahi (45.97%) and
Bogra (31.65%), respectively. Habiganj had the
lowest incidence of these two types of abnormal
seeds. The corresponding percentages of T.
aman, were 41.31 at Chuadanga and 23.95
at Rangpur; the lowest values were seen in
Rangpur (30.59) and Habiganj (2.26) (Tables 4-5).
Fig. 16. ‘Discolored’ seed sorted out from farmer-saved rice seed.

Fig. 17. ‘Deformed’ seed sorted out from farmer-saved rice seed.

25
 Fig. 18. ‘Insect-damaged’ seed sorted out from farmer-saved rice seed.

Fig. 19. ‘Germinated’ seed sorted out from farmer-saved rice seed.

26
 Fig. 20. ‘Smutted’ seed sorted out from farmer-saved rice seed.

Table 4. Abnormal seeds (%) recorded in farmer-saved boro rice Table 5. Abnormal seeds (%) recorded in farmer-saved T. aman
seeds. rice seeds.
Seed collection Spotted Discolored Deformed Othersa Seed collection Spotted Discolored Deformed Othersa
site seed seed seed site seed seed seed
Barisal 31.76 b 2.08 ab 0.38 a 0.53 b Barisal 35.49 c 4.03 bc 0.46 a 1.35 c
Bogra 28.67 a 31.65 e 1.62 d 0.39 a Bogra 32.69 b 13.63 e 1.02 a 3.23 e
Chuadanga 31.13 b 3.04 b 0.35 a 0.42 a Chuadanga 41.31 e 5.10 c 0.73 a 1.71 d
Gazipur 40.97 c 1.70 a 0.54 b 1.35 d Gazipur 41.05 e 3.33 ab 0.49 a 1.18 abc
Habiganj 26.94 a 1.39 a 1.48 c 0.65 c Habiganj 39.29 d 2.26 a 0.60 a 1.32 bc
Rajshahi 45.97 e 16.14 c 0.56 b 0.50 b Rajshahi 37.88 cd 11.33 d 3.66 b 1.17 ab
Rangpur 44.18 d 23.57 d 0.61 b 0.40 a Rangpur 30.59 a 23.95 f 10.23 c 1.13 a
Level of ** ** ** ** Level of ** ** ** **
significanceb significanceb
a
Include insect-damaged, germinated, and smutted rice seeds. b** = 1% level of a
Include insect-damaged, germinated, and smutted rice seeds. b** = 1% level of
significance. significance.

‘Best’ (apparently healthy) seed Prevalence of seedborne pathogenic fungi

The percentage of ‘best’ (apparently healthy)
seed recovered from farmer-saved boro and T.
aman seeds ranged from 29.14 to 60.79% and
27.56 to 52.60%, respectively, depending on the
site. Of the seven sites, a greater amount of ‘best’
seed was obtained from Chuadanga (60.79%),
Habiganj (59.63%), Barisal (59.36%), and Gazipur
(50.21%) in the boro season. During the T. aman,
two sites, Habiganj (52.60%) and Barisal (52.14%),
gave the highest amounts (Figs. 21-23).
The five target seedborne field fungal pathogens
namely—B. oryzae, F. moniliforme, M. oryzae, P.
grisea, and S. oryzae—along with storage fungi
Aspergillus spp. and Penicillium sp. As recorded
by blotter method from clean and unclean seeds
in boro and T. aman from all sites, are presented
in Tables 6-7 and Figure 24. The prevalence of
individual fungal pathogens varied with respect
to site and crop season. Of the five pathogens,
B. oryzae was the most predominant (Fig. 25),

27
 Fig. 21. ‘Best’ (apparently healthy) seed sorted out from farmer-saved rice seed.

Best (apparently healthy) seed (%) Best (apparently healthy) seed (%)
70 60
60.79 52.14 52.6
59.36 59.63
60 48.41
50 46.29
50.21 42.48
50 40.63
40

40
32.76 33.09 27.56
30
29.14
30

20
20

10 10

0 0
ga

ur
a

r
al

nj

ah
gr

pu

ga

ur
a

r
al
ris

an

ip

nj

ah
ig a

gr

pu
jsh
Bo

ris

an
ng

ip
az

ig a
ad
Ba

jsh
Bo

ng
ab

az
Ra

ad
Ra

Ba
G
hu

ab

Ra

Ra
H

G
hu

H
C

Experimental site Experimental site

Fig. 22. ‘Best’ seed sorted out from farmer-saved boro rice seed. Fig. 23. ‘Best’ seed sorted out from farmer-saved T. aman rice seed.

occurring frequently in all sites during both
seasons.
B. oryzae always had much higher incidence
in unclean seed than in clean seed. The rest
of the four pathogenic field fungi were found
28
less frequently associated with both boro and
T. aman seed. In general, they were also more
prevalent in unclean seeds than clean ones
(Tables 6-7).
Among the storage fungi, A. flavus was the
most prevalent (Fig. 26). The highest incidence
 Table 6. Average incidence (%) of some pathogenic fungi encountered in clean and unclean farmer-saved boro rice
seeds from seven sites.
Experimental B. oryzae F. moniliforme M. oryzae P. grisea S. oryzae
site Clean Unclean Clean Unclean Clean Unclean Clean Unclean Clean Unclean

Barisal 3.37 3.99 0.11 0.14 0.39 0.30 0.02 0.00 0.14 0.13

Chuadanga 1.27 1.55 0.09 0.16 0.19 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.17 0.22
Gazipur 5.38 5.70 0.24 0.33 0.41 0.44 0.07 0.12 0.02 0.04
Habiganj 8.22 8.54 0.43 0.44 0.43 1.39 0.03 0.02 0.36 0.49
Bogra 0.40 0.50 0.13 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.23 0.01 0.02
Rajshahi 0.03 0.11 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.02
Rangpur 0.06 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01

Table 7. Average incidence (%) of some pathogenic fungi encountered in clean and unclean farmer-saved T. aman rice
seeds from seven sites.

Experimental B. oryzae F. moniliforme M. oryzae P. grisea S. oryzae

site
Clean Unclean Clean Unclean Clean Unclean Clean Unclean Clean Unclean

Barisal 6.97 6.65 0.40 0.31 0.37 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.39

Chuadanga 7.31 8.65 0.45 0.55 0.17 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.29

Gazipur 2.40 3.21 0.68 0.85 0.47 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.27

Habiganj 1.78 2.31 0.62 0.70 0.77 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.27

Bogra 0.62 1.57 1.07 1.57 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.27 0.007 0.01

Rajshahi 0.49 1.64 0.35 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00

Rangpur 1.38 2.43 0.90 1.96 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.12 0.007 0.01

A B

Fig. 24. Health analysis by blotter method. A. Farmer-saved seed. B. ‘Best’ (apparently healthy) seed.

29
 Fig. 25. Bipolaris oryzae growing on incubated farmer-saved rice seed under a stereomicroscope (X250).

Fig. 26. Aspergillus flavus growing on incubated farmer-saved rice seed under a stereomicroscope
(X250).

Table 8. Percentage of normal seedlings, abnormal seedlings, and dead seeds observed in
clean and unclean farmer-saved boro seeds.
Experimental site Normal seedlings Abnormal seedlingsa Dead seeds
Clean Unclean Clean Unclean Clean Unclean
Barisal 58.85 c 47.80 c 0.30 a 0.40 a 40.85 d 51.80 e
Bogra 83.07 e 52.80 d 5.77 d 8.90 d 10.16 b 38.30 b
Chuadanga 63.60 d 53.70 d 0.86 ab 0.60 ab 35.54 c 45.70 d
Gazipur 49.22 a 41.40 a 1.06 b 1.30 b 49.72 e 57.30 f
Habiganj 54.16 b 43.90 b 5.27 d 4.30 c 40.57 d 51.80 e
Rajshahi 88.29 f 64.65 e 4.29 c 10.00 e 7.64 a 25.35 a
Rangpur 86.40 f 48.38 c 5.87 d 10.07 e 7.82 a 41.55 c
Level of significance b
** ** ** ** ** **
a
Include diseased seedlings. b** = 1% level of significance.

30
of A. flavus was recorded in Gazipur, followed Prevalence of Aphelenchoides besseyi
by Chuadanga and Barisal in Boro season. The population of white tip nematode,
The storage fungi were more common in boro Aphelenchoides besseyi, observed in the present
seed compared with T. aman seed (Fig. 27). In study was relatively low. Markedly fewer
general, storage fungi were found to occur less nematodes were recorded in clean than in
frequently in clean seed. unclean seed.

Table 9. Percentage of normal seedlings, abnormal seedlings, and Germination

dead seeds observed in clean and unclean farmer-saved T. aman
seeds. The percentage of normal seedlings, abnormal
Experimen- Normal seedlings Abnormal Dead seeds seedlings, and dead seeds recorded after 14
tal site seedlingsa d of sowing (Fig. 28) varied significantly—
Clean Unclean Clean Unclean Clean Unclean 41.40-64.65%, 0.40-10.07%, and 25.35-57.30%,
Barisal 82.06 a 65.44 c 0.05 a 0.04 a 17.89 d 34.52 d respectively, in boro and 55.46-76.52%, 0.02-
Bogra 88.73 c 76.52 e 2.85 b 5.97 b 8.41 b 17.51 b 8.63%, and 15.01-37.88%, respectively, in T.
Chuadanga 85.50 b 72.13 d 0.14 a 0.18 a 14.36 c 27.69 c aman. In general, more abnormal seedlings
Gazipur 82.11 a 63.30 b 0.02 a 0.02 a 17.89 d 36.68 e
and dead seeds were observed in boro than in
Habiganj 86.06 b 73.37 d 0.03 a 0.28 a 13.91 c 26.35 c
T. aman; whereas more normal seedlings were
Rajshahi 82.72 a 55.46 a 3.50 c 6.66 b 13.78 c 37.88 e
encountered in T. aman. In boro season, the
Rangpur 89.78 c 76.36 e 3.55 c 8.63 c 6.61 a 15.01 a
highest percentage of normal seedlings was
Level of ** ** ** ** ** **
significanceb obtained at Rajshahi; the lowest was seen at
a
Include diseased seedlings. b** = 1% level of significance. Gazipur. In the case of T. aman, both clean and

Storage fungi (%)

40

35 Barisal
Gazipur

30 Rangpur
Bogra
Hobiganj
25
Chuadanga
Rajshahi
20

15

10

0
Aspergillus Penicillium Aspergillus Penicillium
1999-2000 boro 2000 T. aman

Storage fungi in two seasons

Fig. 27. Association of storage fungi with farmer-saved rice seed collected from seven sites of Bangladesh.

31
 A B C

Fig. 28. Normal seedling (A), abnormal seedlings (B) and dead seed (c).

unclean seeds yielded the highest percentage of Table 10. Yield from clean and unclean farmer-saved seed at
normal seedlings at Rangpur, while the lowest different sites during boro season (2000-01).
Seed collection Yield (t ha–1)
was recorded in clean seed at Barisal and in site
unclean seed at Rajshahi (Tables 8-9). Clean seed Unclean seed Difference % increase
Barisal 6.06 5.28 0.78 14.77 d
Yield performance of clean and unclean seed
Bogra 6.0 5.33 0.67 12.57 c
Field observations showed a more vigorous Chuadanga 5.6 5.1 0.50 9.80 ab
seedling stand in the seedbed raised from clean Gazipur 5.42 4.94 0.48 9.71 a
seed. Similarly, disease and insect pressure was Habiganj 4.53 4.09 0.44 10.75 b
less in the clean transplanted plots in both boro Rajshahi 6.5 5.71 0.79 13.83 d
and T. aman seasons. Rangpur 5.86 5.31 0.55 10.36 ab
The yield obtained from both clean and Av 5.71 5.11 0.60 11.77 bc
unclean seed plots at the seven selected sites Level of **
varied significantly according to site. Average significance
yield of clean seed plots was higher at all sites in ** = 1% level of significance.

both seasons. During boro, the highest yields in

the clean (6.5 t ha–1) and unclean seed plots (5.71 Table 11. Yield from clean and unclean farmer-saved seed at dif-
t ha–1) were seen at Rajshahi; the corresponding ferent sites during T. aman season (2001).
figures in T. aman (5.16 t ha–1 and 4.80 t ha–1) Seed collection Yield (t ha–1)
site
were noted in Bogra (Tables 10-11).
Clean seed Unclean seed Difference % increase
The boro-season yield increase in the
Barisal 4.81 4.46 0.35 7.84 a
clean seed plot varied significantly from 9.71%
Bogra 5.16 4.8 0.36 7.50 a
(Gazipur) to 14.77% (Barisal), with an average
Chuadanga 2.68 2.25 0.43 19.11 d
increase of 11.77% (Table 10). On the other
Gazipur 4.6 4.0 0.60 15.00 b
hand, yield increase in T. aman at different sites
Habiganj 4.2 3.53 0.67 18.98 d
ranged from 7.50 to 19.11% (average 13.30%) Rajshahi 2.59 2.33 0.26 6.68 a
(Table 11). Rangpur 4.57 3.89 0.68 17.48 c
Av 4.09 3.61 0.48 13.30 b
Discussion Level of **
This study on seed health and quality of significance
farmer-saved rice seed in Bangladesh was ** = 1% level of significance.

32
undertaken to assess the status of seed quality
and thereby make necessary improvement.
The seven experimental sites—Barisal, Bogra,
Chuadanga, Gazipur, Habiganj, Rajshahi, and
Rangpur—represent seven districts covering
the major agroeconomic zones of the country.
The research was carried out during the boro
and T. aman seasons. Altogether, 1,120 farmers,
560 for each season, representing 28 villages
under 23 upazilas were included in the study.
The program involved government/semi-
government organizations, universities, and
NGOs. Both males and females participated in
the research, training, and extension activities.
From these, it becomes apparent that SHIP is a
unique project, ensuring the involvement of all
stakeholders. This indicates that the research
project was undertaken with sound planning
and proper vision for handling one of the most
burning issues related to rice seed quality.
The results of the seed quality analysis
showed that the average moisture content of
farmer-saved rice seed varied from 10.9 to
15.1%, depending on seed collection site and
crop season. It was also observed that boro
rice seed had more moisture than T. aman rice
seed. The variation in moisture content of the
seeds of individual farmers was probably due to
differences in the degree of drying of the seeds.
Again, this difference could be attributed to
not realizing the importance of seed moisture
content as well as to lack of sunshine for proper
drying during pre-monsoon days when the
boro crop is harvested. High moisture content
in seed prior to storage affects negatively the
“health” of stored seeds. The rice seed becomes
vulnerable to attacks of storage molds and stored
grain insects, often causing considerable losses
because of reduced germination (Christansen
and Kaufmann 1965, Miah and Fakir 1989).
Seed contaminants such as weed seeds,
insects, varietal mixture (seeds of other rice
varieties), partially filled seeds, unfilled
seeds, other plant parts, inert matter, and
seeds of other crop species were observed
in most samples of both boro and T. aman
seeds collected from all seven sites. These
contaminants occurred in trace amount,
depending on type of contaminant, site, and
crop season. This situation indicates that the
quality of farmer-saved rice seed is in no way of
good quality. Seeds of weed species may carry
inocula of B. oryzae and P. grisea as they have
been reported to serve as alternate hosts of these
two rice seedborne pathogens. Storage insects,
present in farmer-saved seeds, may not only
damage the seeds physically but also encourage
the growth of storage molds, thus reducing seed
germination (Christensen and Kaufmann 1965,
Miah and Fakir 1989). The high prevalence of
four species of storage insects (rice moth, rice
weevil, red flour beetle, and lesser grain borer)
in farmer-saved rice seeds in the present study
implies poor seed quality in terms of insect
infestation. There is also proof that ‘inert matter’
present in rice seeds can carry viable spores of
B. oryzae, C. lunata, F. moniliforme, and Aspergillus
spp., which are important seedborne pathogens
of rice (Rahman 1999).
The occurrence of a good percentage of seeds
of other rice varieties in farmer-saved rice seeds
indicates that farmers are not very careful with
having varietal mixture in their saved seeds.
The health of the seed lot may be affected if
seeds of susceptible varieties are mixed with the
saved seeds of resistant varieties.
The presence of six types of abnormal seeds
in farmer-saved boro and T. aman rice seeds
further proves the poor quality of farmers’
seeds. Discolored and spotted seeds in farmer-
saved seeds pose a threat because they carry
various seedborne pathogens.
Only 27.56–60.79% of the best (apparently
healthy seed) could be recovered from the
original farmer-saved seed (Figs. 22-23). This
is an alarming situation. It demands more
careful attention to seed crop management and
processing of seeds after harvest, especially
during cleaning operations.
Seed-borne infection by pathogenic fungi
B. oryzae, F. moniliforme, M. oryzae, P. grisea,
and S. oryzae as well as occurrence of storage
fungi A. flavus and Penicilium sp. in the test seed
samples reflect the unsatisfactory health status
of rice seed. Original farmer-saved rice seeds
that carry the amount of inocula detected in the
present analysis, if sown, may create alarming
disease outbreaks in the seed beds as well as in
33
the transplanted fields, resulting in heavy yield
losses to the crop as well as hampering quality
seed production. This fact can be gleaned
from the poor germination of farmer-saved
seeds producing fewer normal seedlings and
resulting in a large amount of dead seeds and
abnormal/diseased seedlings (Tables 8 and 9). In
contrast, the ‘best’ seeds obtained from farmers’
original saved seeds, which went through
physical cleaning by separation or removal of
seed contaminants and abnormal seeds, had
low seedborne infections of pathogenic fungi
(Tables 6 and 7). These ‘best’ seeds did well in
the germination test with natural soil, resulting
in markedly higher percentage of normal
seedlings and lesser percentage of dead seeds/
abnormal and diseased seedlings. This indicates
that seed cleaning through physical sorting has
great value for obtaining apparently healthy
clean rice (‘best’) seeds—the number of initial
seedborne inocula of plant pathogens present in
the original farmer-saved rice seeds is reduced.
The study on yield performance of clean
and unclean seed in the farmers’ participatory
research has clearly shown that manual seed
cleaning has a positive impact on rice. Increased
yield was observed with clean seed at all seven
sites in both boro and T. aman seasons. On
average, 11.77 and 13.30% yield increase was
achieved during boro and T. aman, respectively.
A similar yield increase was reported by Diaz et
al (2000), citing 9.01% average increase. Results
obtained at SPL though a pilot project research
sponsored by DANIDA also showed that 12-
14% increased rice yield could be obtained only
by using clean and apparently healthy seed
(Doullah et al 2000, Mathur et al 2002).
Summary
Farmer-saved rice seeds from the 1999-2000
boro and T. aman 2000 seasons were included
in the seed quality analysis. Seed samples were
collected from seven sites in Bangladesh—
Barisal, Bogra, Chuadanga, Gazipur, Habiganj,
Rajshahi, and Rangpur. These represented 1,120
farmers, 560 each for boro and T. aman season,
from 28 villages under 23 upazilas. The seeds
were analyzed in the Plant Pathology Laboratory
of BRRI and the SPL of BAU.
34
Seed samples were tested for moisture
content using an electric digital moisture meter
and the ‘best’ (apparently healthy) seeds were
separated from the original farmer-saved seeds
by manual physical seed sorting, eliminating
the seed contaminants and abnormal seeds.
Germination was determined in plastic trays
with natural soil. Seedborne infection of fungal
pathogens was detected by the blotter method,
while infestation of seeds by the nematode A.
besseyi was determined by the Baermann funnel
method.
The moisture content of boro and T. aman
rice seeds ranged from 12.1 to 15.1% and 10.9
to 15.0%, respectively. In general, boro rice
seed had more moisture than T. aman seed.
Eight seed contaminants—insects, weed
seeds, varietal mixture, other plant parts,
inert matter, partially filled seeds, unfilled
seeds, and seeds of other crop species—varied
significantly and independently of crop season
and seed collection site. Of the contaminants,
weed seeds and insects occurred in greater
abundance; varietal mixture, partially filled
seeds, inert matter, and unfilled seeds occurred
to an appreciable extent. Seeds of other crop
species and other plant parts rarely occurred.
Of the six types of abnormal seeds recorded,
discolored and spotted seeds occurred in greater
abundance in both boro and T. aman seasons.
The recovery percentage of ‘best’ seeds is quite
low in farmer-saved seeds of both seasons—
29.14-60.79% (boro) and 27.56-52.60% (T. aman).
Five important pathogenic fungi—B. oryzae,
F. moniliforme, P. grisea, M. oryzae, and S. oryzae
detected in rice seeds varied in prevalence with
respect to crop season, seed collection site, and
seed cleanliness. All the five fungi were more
prevalent in the original farmer-saved seeds
than in the ‘best’ seeds. Two storage fungi, A.
flavus and Penicillium sp., were encountered
in farmer-saved seeds, with A. flavus being
more prevalent. The storage fungi were more
common in boro seeds than in T. aman seeds.
Aphelenchoides besseyi was also more prevalent
in seeds of boro compared with those of T.
aman. More nematodes were seen in the original
farmer-saved seeds than in the ‘best’ seeds. A
higher normal seedling count was obtained in
the ‘best’ seeds than in the farmer-saved seed.
Again, the former always gave a markedly lesser
percentage of dead seeds and abnormal/diseased
seedlings for both boro and T. aman seasons.
The average yield recorded from clean seed
plots was always higher than unclean ones in
both seasons. More yield was obtained during T.
aman—the average yield increase was 13.30%, in
contrast with boro’s 11.77%. Based on the present
study, farmers may increase rice yield by using
clean or ‘best’ (apparently healthy) seeds. They
can achieve this by removing seed contaminants
and abnormal seeds from the original farmer-
saved seeds through physical sorting. Res. 17: 169-173.
Conclusions
Based on the results of the present study, the
following conclusions may be drawn:
• Manual seed cleaning improves markedly
the quality of farmer-saved rice seed.
• Clean or ‘best’ (apparently healthy) seed
gives more normal seedlings and yields less
abnormal seedlings and dead seeds.
• Clean seed reduces the pest and disease
pressure on the growing crop.
• Clean seed gives 12.13% more yield over
farmer-saved rice seed.
The simple seed health technology developed
by the SHIP under PETRRA had helped farmers
increase their income and minimize the impact
of poverty.
Pathology. Mymensingh: Bangladesh Agricultural
University. 10 p.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1999. Production
year book. Rome (Italy): FAO. p. 64.
ISTA (International Seed Testing Association). 1996.
International rules for seed testing. Seed Sci. Technol.
24:39-42.
Mathur SB, Ali MA, Fakir GA. 2002. Effect of seed on
germination and grain yield of rice and wheat
Bangladesh J. Training Dev. 15(1 & 2): 187-192.
Mew TW. 1994. Why clean seeds are important. In: Mew
TW, Rosales AM, Rapusas HR, Heong KL, editors.
Report on Planning Workshop on Clean Seed for Pest
Management. Los Baños (Philippines): International
Rice Research Institute.
Miah IH, Fakir GA. 1989. Fungi, moisture content, and
germinability of rough rice grains during storage. Seed
Rahman AJMM, Islam MK, Mia MAT. 2000. Evaluation of
cleaning methods to improve the quality of farmer-
saved rice seed. Bangladesh J. Plant Pathol. 16(1 & 2):
39-42.
Rahman M, Mia MAT. 1998. Studies on the health status of
farmers’ stored seed of rice. Bangladesh J. Plant Pathol.
14(1 & 2): 37-40.
Rahman MAK. 1999. Inert matter with rice and wheat
seeds as source of inoculum. MS thesis, Department of
Plant Pathology, Bangladesh Agricultural University,
Mymensingh.

References
BBS (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics). 2002. Monthly
statistical bulletin. Ministry of Planning. Government of
the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
Christensen CM, Kaufmann HH. 1965. Determination of
stored grains by fungi. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 3: 69-89.
Diaz C, Hossain M, Bose ML, Merca S, Mew TW. 2000.
Effect of seed quality on rice yield. Paper presented at
the Review and Planning Meeting on Rice Seed Health
Improvement for Increasing Yield and Reducing Pest
Pressures in Bangladesh, 25-26 Nov. 2000, Bangladesh
Institute of Development Studies, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Doullah AU, Hossain I, Ali A, Fakir GA, Mathur SB. 2000.
Comparative effect of seed cleaning, washing, and seed
treatment on seedling disease increase and yield of rice.
Bangladesh J. Seed Sci. Technol. 3: 17-21.
Fakir GA. 2004. Estimation of crop losses due to seed-borne
diseases in Bangladesh.
Fakir GA. 1998. Health status of farmers rice seed. In:
Proceedings of the First National Workshop on Seed

35
Quality of rice seeds in Bangladesh and effects on yield and
pest pressure: results of farmer participatory experiments
M. Hossain, C. Diaz, F. Elazegui, and T. Mew
The genetic potential of modern varieties
cannot be optimized and sustained unless
seeds planted by farmers are of high quality
(Tripp 2001). Seed quality depends on the health
conditions as well as the contaminants of a seed
lot. Seedborne pathogens are major determi-
nants of seed health, the prime factor for seed
quality. Other factors are contaminants such
as deformed seeds, partially filled seeds, mix-
tures with weed seeds, and mixtures with other
seed varieties. In many rice-growing countries,
adoption of modern varieties is approaching
the maximum limit (Hossain et al 2002). But
the population continues to grow, requiring
additional rice production to meet the growing
demand. The farm-level yield of modern variet-
ies is still substantially lower than the techni-
cally achievable yield; this difference is popu-
larly known as the “yield gap” (FAO 2002). Even
with existing varieties, it is possible to increase
production by reducing the yield gap through
improved crop management practices. Manage-
ment of seed quality is a critical management
practice that can substantially reduce the yield
gap.
Scientists have already developed tech-
nologies for the production and preservation
of seeds for quality maintenance, building on
enterprising farmers’ traditional knowledge
and practices. The constraint is the adoption of
those technologies by farmers. The issue would
not be important if the farmer buys the seed
from the market, and seed companies maintain
the quality. But, in most developing countries,
the seed replacement rate is very low. Farmers
usually keep the seed from their own harvest
or exchange it with neighbors. With the use of
their own harvest as seeds, season after season
the genetic potential of the seed deteriorates,
leading to low crop yield. We must therefore,
36
target farmers to disseminate the improved
technologies of producing, drying, and present-
ing seeds to improve the quality of seeds they
use. But, farmers must be convinced that seed
quality is important in reducing production cost
and increasing yield.
The aim of this study was to increase farm-
ers’ awareness of the importance of quality
seeds. A farmer participatory research ap-
proach was used for this purpose. Both farmers
and researchers conducted the experiment in
farmers’ fields. The farmers’ direct involvement
in the conduct of the experiment and having
the experiment right on their fields made a lot
of difference compared with the traditional ap-
proach of researchers conducting the research
in the station or in farmers’ fields. In the latter
scenario, the experiment is still managed by
the researchers. Conducting experiments in
farmers’ fields effectively empowers the farm-
ers (and the farming community) by increasing
their awareness of improved methods of crop
production (Ashby 1991). The farmer participa-
tory experiment uses the “learning-by-doing”
approach, a process that stimulates the curiosity
and interest of farmers on seed health manage-
ment issues. The experiment was done in three
boro and two aman seasons from 2000 to 2002.
This paper presents the findings of the experi-
ments.
Data and methodology
Selection of experimental sites
The experiment was conducted in selected
villages in seven districts that represent the
diverse agroecological zones in Bangladesh: Ch-
uadanga (drought-prone medium land), Barisal
(coastal nonsaline), Rangpur (favorable flood-
plains), Rajshahi (barind-tract, drought-prone
highland), Bogra (irrigated double-cropped
rice system), Habiganj (flood-prone lowland),
 Fig. 1. Rice seed health improvement subproject (SHIP), PETRRA sites covering major agroecological zones
in Bangladesh.
and Gazipur (favorable upland). The selected
experimental sites can be seen in Figure 1. cleaning for planting during the next season
Survey and seed collection
Before the farmer participatory experiment, we
implemented a baseline survey to study farm-
ers’ knowledge, perceptions, and practices on
seed health issues. For each of the seven sites,
80 sample households were interviewed using a
structured questionnaire. A total of 560 sample
households participated in the baseline survey.
One kilogram of seeds (1999 boro) was collected
from each sample household for seed health
analysis of farmer-saved seeds.
Selection of participating farmers
From the 560 households participating in the
baseline survey, 210 farmers from the seven
sites were selected to take part in the experi-
ment. Thirty farmers were selected from each
site, following certain criteria––e.g., willingness
to participate in the experiment, having suf-
ficient cultivable land to be used for the experi-
ment; and having enough quality seeds after
(2000 boro). Later it was found that the partici-
pating farmers were above average with regard
to size of landholding and level of education
(Hossain and Diaz 2000).
Assessment of seed quality
The 1-kg farmer-saved seed was examined in
the Seed Health Laboratory of the Bangladesh
Agricultural University (BAU), Mymensingh,
and in BRRI to assess quality in terms of seed
health factors. A portion of the farmer-saved
seed was examined on the basis of physical
quality, presence of seedborne pathogens, and
rate of germination. In testing physical quality,
pure seed, mixture, discolored seed, insect and
weed seed were identified. A blotter test of 400
seeds was used in the identification of seed-
borne pathogens. The remaining portion was
cleaned in the laboratory and returned to the
farmer participant for use in an experiment that
will evaluate the impact of seed quality.
37
 The farmer-participants planted the clean
seed in a portion of a selected parcel. In the ad-
jacent portion of that parcel, they planted their
own seed of the same variety. The same parcel
was used in the experiment to dissociate the
effect of other factors such as soil quality, land
level, and access to irrigation. The participating
farmers used their own crop management prac-
tices in both portions of the parcel. The only
difference was use of the cleaned seed.
Assessment of pest pressure
To collect data on crop growth and pest inci-
dence, a diagonal sampling line was adopted
using 10 hills for each plot. Data collection was
done at these four development stages of the
crop: early tillering (30 d after transplanting),
maximum tillering to booting, early dough, and
crop maturity.
Data were also recorded for such crop
growth parameters as number of tillers, leaves,
and panicles; plant height; percent uniformity,
and variety mixtures. Plant height was taken
from 10 sample hills per field. Uniformity was
recorded in terms of greenness, height, and
density of plants. The data on variety mixture
(recorded in visits 3 and 4) were based on hill
count, with off-types expressed as a percentage
of the total number of hills assessed.
Incidence of leaf diseases such as brown
spot (BS) and bacterial blight (BB) was ex-
pressed as percentage, on the basis of number
of infected leaves per hill. For diseases affect-
ing the leaf sheath (like sheath blight [ShB])
and the stem (like stem rot [SR]), incidence was
measured on the basis of the number of infect-
ed tillers expressed as a percentage of the total
number of tillers assessed per hill. Diseases af-
fecting the panicles (like sheath rot [ShR]) were
recorded as in SR, except that the boot enclosing
the panicles was observed instead of the stem.
During visit 4, diseases affecting the grains
such as false smut (FSm), kernel smut (KSm),
and discolored grains (GD) were recorded as
the proportion of affected grains in a represen-
tative panicle.
Assessment of insect pests was done in sev-
eral ways. Counts were made on planthoppers
caught in a water pan trap and on leafhoppers
38
caught in insect net sweeps. Incidence of in-
jured leaves by whorl maggot (WM), leaffolder
(LF), and other leaf feeders (OTH) was recorded
as the number of injured leaves expressed as
a proportion of total leaves in a hill. Injuries
caused by stem borers, deadhearts (DH) and
whiteheads (WH) were determined as the pro-
portion of tillers and panicles affected in each
hill, respectively.
Weed infestation was assessed as percent
ground area covered by the weeds above and
below the rice canopy. Weeds were observed
from three sampling areas at (10 m2 each) for
visits 1 to 3, and from only one sampling area
(whole field or whole plot) for visit 4.
Yield estimates
Yield data were measured using a crop-cut
of 2 m by 3 m from the two plots (clean seed
plot and farmer seed plot) of the same parcel.
Harvesting was supervised by the researcher
using the crop-cut method. To test the differ-
ence in quality of seeds from the two plots, seed
samples harvested from the 6 m2 plots were
collected and brought to the laboratory. The
seed samples were dried to about 14% moisture
content and subjected to routine seed health
analysis—i.e., seed samples were tested on the
basis of the capacity of the seeds to germinate
in relation to seed infection and vigor.
The T test for paired sample (clean seed and
farmer seed plots on the same parcel, planted
by the same farmer) was used in testing the
hypotheses on the differences or equality of the
mean yield and other relevant factors.
The results of the experiment were further
evaluated by conducting a participatory rural
appraisal (PRA). The aim was to get feedback
Table 1. Sources of rice seeds planted by farmers, 1999.a
Modern Traditional All
Source varieties varieties varieties
Own stock 79.8 86.7 81.6
Exchanged with neighbors 3.6 3.2 3.5
Purchased from neighbors 7.0 5.2 6.5
Private seed traders 2.6 4.8 3.2
Government institutions 6.6 0.0 5.0
NGOs 0.3 0.0 0.3
a
Data taken from the benchmark survey on farmers’ knowledge, attitude, and
practices of seed management.
from participating farmers about their own
observations of the factors.
Results and discussion
Farmers’ knowledge and perceptions
of seed quality
A baseline survey was conducted before the
experiment to know farmer’s knowledge, at-
titudes, and practices regarding seed manage-
ment in Bangladesh. This section presents the
findings of this benchmark survey.
Sources of seeds. Table 1 reports the findings
of the survey on the sources of seed that the
farmers plant. About 82% of the sample farm-
ers reported that they used seeds saved from
their own harvests. Another 10% of the seeds
they bought from or exchanged with their
neighbors. Seed savings from the harvest are
thus the predominant source of rice seed in
Bangladesh. Only 5% of the farmers claimed to
get seeds from government institutions (BADC
or research stations). Seeds obtained from
private traders were reported by only 3% of the
sample farmers. Farmers who took seeds from
NGOs were rare. Own stock was relatively a
more important source for traditional varieties,
whereas government institutions were more for
traditional varieties than for modern varieties.
BADC was reported to be active in seed market-
ing in the Chuadanga site, presumably due to
the presence of a BADC seed farm in a nearby
area. NGOs were mentioned as a source of
seed in the Rangpur site and the private trad-
ers were cited in the Barisal site, where farmers
grew mostly traditional varieties. Since farm-
ers’ stocks are the predominant source of seeds,
knowledge and practices for selecting good
seeds and preserving them to maintain quality
are obviously important crop management fac-
tors in Bangladesh.
About 92% of the farmers reported that seed
for the boro planting was derived from the boro
harvest the previous year. For aus planting,
59% of the cases reported using seed from the
previous aus harvest and a substantial portion
from the previous boro harvest. For the aman
plantings, however, the seed used were almost
entirely from the previous aman harvest. The
findings suggest some interchange of seeds be-
tween boro and aus seasons. Since the seeds are
kept for a long period for both the aman and
boro crops, proper storage of seeds should be a
major element in seed management.
Nearly 74% of the farmers said they keep
the seed from their own harvest because the
quality of their own seed was better than that
of seed available from the market, either from
the BADC or from private seed traders (Table 2).
Other important reasons mentioned are “good
seeds not available,” “new better varieties not
available,” and “the price of seed too high.” It
is important to note that “lack of capital to buy
seed” was mentioned to be an insignificant rea-
son for not buying seed from the market. Seeds
account for only about 2% of the gross value of
rice production, hence, the cost of seed is not an
issue. The findings indicate that the major seed-
related issues in Bangladesh are the develop-
ment of varieties that farmers perceive as better
than what they currently use, making seeds of
new varieties available to farmers, and ensuring
the farmers’ trust regarding quality of seed sup-
plied from the market.
Perceptions on quality of own seeds. Farmers
were aware that the seeds they keep from their
harvest are not of perfect quality. They knew
about the presence of different contaminants in
their seed stock (Table 3). The problems report-
Table 2. Reasons for keeping seeds from
own harvest.
Reason Percent of casesa
Good seed not available 38
New varieties not available 33
Price of seed too high 24
Cannot afford to buy seed 1
Better quality of own seed 74
a
Total exceeds 100 because of multiple responses.
Table 3. Farmers’ assessment of the charac-
teristics of their own seeds.
Characteristic Percent of cases
Deformed seeds 23
Discolored seeds 42
Mixed with soil particles 65
Mixed with off-types 43
Mixed with weed seeds 57
Damaged by insects 45
Source: Benchmark KAP survey.
39

ed by farmers, in the order of importance, were
presence of soil particles (65%), mixtures with
weed seeds (57%), mixture with seeds damaged
by insects (45%), mixture with seeds of other
varieties (43%), and mixture with discolored
seeds (42%). (Figures within the parentheses are
percentages of cases reporting this as a prob-
lem.) The problem of mixtures with deformed
seeds was mentioned by only about one-fifth of
the farmers.
The farmers’ assessment of the quality of
their own seeds, however, differed across loca-
tions. Farmers in Chuadanga and Rangpur
assessed seeds as having better quality because
contaminants were less frequently observed. In
Barisal, Habiganj, and Gazipur, farmers report-
ed that their own seeds were mixed with weed
seeds, damaged by insects, and mixed with off-
types and other contaminants.
These findings suggest two points. The first
was the condition of farmer-saved seeds and
the second, the extent of farmers’ knowledge in
assessing seed quality. Farmers might consider
their own seeds to be clean with a high level of
purity because they cannot correctly identify
the mixtures and the seriousness of seed con-
ditions. In this case, they may reject scientific
knowledge for improving seed quality. On
the other hand, farmers may be knowledge-
able in assessing the quality of seeds and have
evaluated their seeds to be impure because of
factors beyond their control. It appears from
the responses of the farmers that they clearly
perceived the quality of their own seeds as a
problem. They would therefore be receptive to
outside interventions meant to improve quality.
A large proportion of farmers perceived
good land preparation, proper soil moisture,
and adequate nutrient as equally important fac-
tors that affect seedling vigor (Table 4). Use of
chemicals for treating seeds before planting and
proper harvesting, threshing, and drying of
seeds were perceived by a smaller proportion of
farmers as key factors affecting seedling vigor The findings are reported in Table 6.
Perception on yield effects of own seeds.
Farmers’ perceptions of yield effects of seed
conditions are shown in Table 5. They per-
ceived that substantial yield reduction is caused
by seeds with insect damage, by seeds mixed
40
Table 4. Farmers’ knowledge of factors
affecting seedling vigor.
Factor Percent of cases
Good land preparation 91
Good seed quality 89
Adequate fertilizer 89
Adequate moisture 85
Use of insecticides 68
Proper harvesting, threshing, and drying 50
Source: Benchmark KAP survey.
Table 5. Farmers’ perception of yield effects of seed health
conditions.
Some yield Substantial
Seeds condition reduction yield reduction Total
Discolored seeds 20.7 6.3 27.0
Smutted seeds 29.3 16.3 45.6
Deformed seeds 35.5 21.9 57.4
Mixed with off-types 27.6 21.7 49.3
Mixed with weed seeds 44.0 15.7 59.7
Seeds with insect damage 37.7 31.9 69.6
Source: Benchmark KAP survey.
with off types, and by deformed seeds. Seed
conditions that cause some or substantial yield
losses were reported by farmers as seeds with
insect damage (70%), seed mixed with weeds
(60%), deformed seeds (57%), and seeds mixed
with off types (49%). Those who thought discol-
ored or smutted seeds cause some or substantial
yield losses were a minority among the sample
farmers.
Quality of farmer-saved seeds: results of
laboratory tests
In relation to the conduct of farmer participa-
tory experiment comparing the effects of clean
and farmer-saved seeds, the farmer-saved seeds
used in the study were subjected to seed qual-
ity analysis before planting. Seed samples from
Barisal, Chuadanga, Gazipur, and Habiganj
were analyzed at the Seed Pathology Labora-
tory in BRRI, whereas those from Bogra, Rang-
pur, and Rajshahi were analyzed at the BAU.
The farmer-saved seeds in the seven sites
in Bangladesh had a low degree of varietal
mixtures, from 1.5% to 9.7%, across sites, in the
boro and T. aman seasons of 1999 and 2000.
The mean values for seeds with mixtures were
Table 6. Quality of farmer-saved seeds in Bangladesh: findings of
pathology tests.
Season Site Seed with Seed with Discolored Weed seedsa
varietal contaminants seeds (%) (number)
mixture (%) (%)
1999 boro Barisal 5.82 40.65 1.99 19.1
Bogra 3.01 67.24 31.65 116.0
Chuadanga 3.92 39.62 3.04 20.9
Gazipur 5.90 49.76 1.70 19.0
Rangpur 1.65 70.86 23.56 16.0
Habigonj 9.65 40.37 1.39 65.6
Rajshaji 1.54 66.91 16.13 22.0
Mean 4.50 53.63 11.35 37.3
2000 T. aman
Bogra 4.96 57.52 13.63 24.0
Rangpur 3.87 71.44 23.95 14.5
Rajshaji 6.04 59.37 11.33 31.0
Mean 4.96 62.78 16.30 23.2
Number of weed seeds per kilogram of seed sample.
a
estimated at 4.5% and 5.0%, respectively, for
boro and aman. These values were lower than
the standard for varietal mixture (6% varietal
mixture equivalent to 94% purity) for certified
rice seeds as fixed by the National Seed Board
(NSB 1993). Thus, in terms of varietal mixture,
the quality of farmer-saved seeds was good.
The number of seeds contaminated with dif-
ferent pathogens was, however, extremely high,
varying from 40 to 70% during the boro season,
depending on the site, and from 51 to 71% dur-
ing aman. The mean values were 54 and 63%,
respectively, for boro and aman. The standard
rate of contamination, which is considered ac-
ceptable, is only 1%. Thus, farmer-saved seeds
had very low quality with regard to this param-
eter. This finding indicates serious problems in
seed preservation.
The low quality of farmer-saved seeds was
also evident in the percentage of discolored
seeds. The average value was estimated at
11% for the boro season and 16% for the aman
season. At some sites, discolored seeds were as
high as 31%.
The degree of contamination of seeds with
weed seeds was also found to be very high. The
number of weed seeds per kilogram of seed
sample was found to vary from 16 to 116 (boro)
and from 15 to 31 (aman). For certified seeds,
the standard was 10 weed seeds per kilogram
of seeds. In none of the sites did seeds collected
from farmers meet this standard. The highest
number of weed seeds was observed in Bogra
with values of 116 and 41 in boro and aman,
respectively.
Effect of seed quality on pest pressure and yield
The farmer participatory experiments were
conducted for five cropping seasons (three boro
and two T. aman) from 2000 to 2002. As men-
tioned earlier, the participating farmers planted
their own seeds in one plot and the clean seed
in an adjacent plot (the clean seed are also farm-
ers’ seed processed in BRRI and BAU laborato-
ries and then returned to them). They followed
their own crop management practices. The
first boro-season experiment used only a small
amount (less than 100 g) of clean seed, since
only 1 kg of seed was collected during the base-
line survey. For the succeeding four seasons
(two boro and two T. aman), farmers cleaned
their own saved seed (2 kg) by physical seed
sorting. Cleaning through manual sorting was
done during the farmers’ training on improved
seed health management. The cleaned seeds
were planted in an adjacent plot side by side
with their own seed (not cleaned by physical
sorting) of the same variety. Every season, the
fields were visited four times: at tillering stage,
at booting stage, at milk-to-soft dough stage,
and at ripening to full maturity stage. The fol-
lowing section presents the findings of these
experiments.
Crop growth parameters. Table 7 shows the
results of the farmer participatory experiments,
indicating the affected yield parameters. Plants
in cleaned seed plot (CSP) were more uniform
and had more leaves, tillers, and panicles than
those in the farmer seed plot (FSP), all at highly
significant levels for the T. aman season. The
number of tillers was 5% higher and the num-
ber of panicles 9% higher on CSP than on FSP.
In contrast, these crop variables were not statis-
tically different in the boro season. Plant height
was not affected by treatment, regardless of
cropping season. During the boro season, the
plants grew more vigorously on both CSP and
FSP; the observed difference was statistically
insignificant.
41
 Table 7. Effect of seed quality on crop growth in the boro and T. aman seasons, 2000-
02.

Season Variable Clean Farmer %

seeds seeds difference T value

T. amana Uniformity (%) 86.84 82.35 5.45 5.93***b

2000-01 Number of leaves (AUC)c 4473.73 4214.28 6.16 6.69***
Number of tillers 16.31 15.54 4.95 6.25***
Number of panicles 12.71 11.62 9.38 4.08**
Plant height (AUC)d 7965.49 7874.92 1.15 1.70ns
Boroe Uniformity (%) 87.74 85.52 2.60 1.72ns
2000-02 Number of leaves (AUC)c 5231.71 5034.12 3.93 1.52ns
Number of tillers 18.30 17.80 2.81 1.22ns
Number of panicles 15.54 14.87 4.51 1.94ns
Plant height (AUC)d 6742.42 6641.05 1.53 2.57ns

a
Mean of seven sites in two seasons.b** - significant at P=0.01; *** - significant at P=0.001; ns – not significant at
P=0.05. cAUC – area under the curve (% dsu-1 [crop development stage unit]). dAUC – area under the curve (cm
dsu-1 [crop development stage unit]). eMean of seven sites in three seasons.

Table 8. Effect of seed quality on weeds, insect pests, and diseases in the boro and
T. aman seasons, 2000-02.

Season Variable Clean Farmer %

seeds seeds difference T-value

Boroa
2000-02 Weeds below canopy (AUC)b 536.38 652.66 21.68 3.12**c
Whitehead incidence (%) 3.26 4.44 36.20 4.84*
Rice hispa (AUC) 240.83 279.59 16.09 9.04***
Brown planthopper (%) 3.33 3.94 18.32 3.82***
Bakanae incidence (%) 0.02 0.10 400.00 4.02*
T. amand
2000-01 Deadheart incidence (%) 2.60 3.66 40.77 4.61**
Whitehead incidence (%) 3.48 4.95 42.24 5.71***
Gall midge incidence (%) 3.18 4.90 54.09 3.24**
Other defoliators (AUC) 669.59 749.93 12.00 4.14**
Green leafhopper (AUC) 249.68 287.10 14.99 5.52**
Sheath blight severity (%) 11.63 13.90 19.52 6.31***
Sheath rot incidence (%) 4.12 5.47 32.77 5.78***
Kernel smut incidence (%) 0.52 0.62 19.23 2.95**

a
Mean of seven sites in three seasons. bAUC – area under the curve (% dsu-1 [crop development stage unit])c*
- significant at P=0.05; ** - significant at P=0.01; *** - significant at P=0.001. dMean of seven sites in two seasons.

Pest pressure. In the boro season, the major
pests were weeds, stem borers, brown plant-
hoppers, and bakanae. Bakanae is a seedborne
disease (Table 8). Incidence was, however, found
to be quite low. There was substantial difference
in incidence of this disease between CSP and
FSP, and the difference was statistically signifi-
cant. A seed lot contaminated with bakanae
must be cleaned thoroughly before being used
as planting material. In CSP, the incidence was
22% lower for weeds, 36% lower for stem bor-
ers, 16% lower for hispa, and 18% lower for BPH,
compared with the FSP plot. The t test showed
42
statistically significant difference in all cases.
As expected, more pests were recorded in
the T. Aman season because of high moisture
levels. The major pests were stem borers (caus-
ing both deadheart and whitehead), gall midge,
other defoliators, green leafhoppers, sheath
blight, sheath rot, and kernel smut. The inci-
dence of all these pests, however, was substan-
tially less in CSP than in FSP. Again, the differ-
ences were statistically highly significant.
Weeds could also be related to seed health
as the rice seed lot used in planting could be
contaminated with weed seeds. Hence, there yield gain with the use of quality seeds was al-
will be more weed infestation in the field. The most the same in all three seasons, although the
incidence of weed was insignificant during level of yield was different. The results of the
aman because of the standing water in the field paired t-test for the difference in yield between
from the rains. In the boro season, however, the two plots for the same farmer across all
weed incidence was high. The major weeds participating farmers were highly significant.
in the boro season were shama, amrul, mutha, For the two T. aman seasons (2000 and 2001),
chesra, and durba. In the aman season, the major the percent increase in yield caused by using
weeds were amrul, durba, and chesra. In the boro quality seed was 12.7% during the first experi-
season, weed incidence was about 22% lower in ment in the T. aman season and 12.0% in the
the CSP than in the FSP, and the difference was second experiment. The overall difference in
statistically significant. yield for the two seasons was 0.47 t ha–1, which
Many of the pests observed in the field was about 12.3% increase in yield. The differ-
though were not related to seed. Yet, their ences in yield between clean seed and farmer
incidence was higher in the FSP. It appeared seed for the T. aman seasons were all highly
that the crop in the FSP was less vigorous and significant.
succumbed to more pests. More pests could The differences in effect of quality seed on
have contributed to the reduction in grain yield. 2002 boro yield, by site covered by the experi-
Problems such as whitehead and sheath rot, ment, are shown in Table 9. For all locations,
which directly affect the panicles, could have there were differences in yield between CSP
also contributed to yield reduction. and FSP, all statistically significant, except in
Effect on yield. Table 9 shows the results Bogra and Habiganj. The highest percentage
of the experiment in five seasons (boro 2000, increase in yield was observed in Rangpur,
2001, and 2002; T. aman 2000 and 2001) for all followed by Chuadanga, Barisal, and Rajshahi.
seven sites. The average yield was nearly 1.5 t Considering all cases, the percent increase in
ha–1 higher in the boro season than in the aman yield in the CSP compared with FSP was about
season, indicating a favorable rice-growing 12.1%.
environment in the dry season than in the wet
season. Yield was lower in the 2002 boro season Farmers’ assessment of the experiment
because of the adverse effects of droughts. After the first boro-season experiment, a PRA
For the boro season, average yield of CSP for was done in the different sites. Findings from
the three-season experiment was 5.64 t ha–1; FSB the PRA indicate that farmers were able to
had 5.09 t ha–1. Thus, the use of cleaned seed in- differentiate the CSP from the FSP. Clean seed
creased rice yield by 0.55 t ha–1, about 11%. The plots had better conditions for germination,

Table 9. Effect of seed quality on rice yield, Bangladesh, 2000-02.
Season Estimated rough Differences Percent
rice yield (kg ha–1)a in yield increase in
Clean Farmer (kg ha–1) yield t-valueb
seed seed
Table 10. Effect of seed quality on rice yield, by site, 2002 boro
season.
Site Estimated rough rice yield Differences Percent
(kg ha–1)a in yield increase in
Clean seed Farmer seed (kg ha–1) yield t-valuea

Boro Chuadanga 5140 4464 676 15.1 2.10*

2000 5750 5265 485 9.2 2.61**
2001 5790 5190 598 11.6 5.15***
2002 5380 4800 582 12.1 5.12***
Av 5640 5085 555 11.0
T. aman
2000 4075 3616 459 12.7 5.35***
2001 4480 4000 480 12.0 5.04***
Av 4277 3808 469 12.3
a
Mean of seven sites. ** Differences statistically significant at the 0.01 level. ***Differences
b statistically significant at the 0.01 level; ***differences statistically significant at the 0.001
statistically significant at the 0.001 level.
Barisal 5153 4499 654 14.5 2.66**
Rangpur 4570 3895 675 17.3 4.57***
Rajshahi 7137 6306 831 13.2 4.02***
Habiganj 4551 4183 368 8.8 1.71ns
Gazipur 5695 5246 449 8.6 2.66**
Bogra 5484 5072 412 8.1 1.91ns
Mean 5380 4800 582 12.1 5.12***
a
ns– not significant; *differences statistically significant at the 0.05 level; **differences
level.

43

more vigorous growth of seedlings, and fewer
off-types. They also mentioned lower weed in-
cidence, more filled grains, and higher yield in
the CSP. However, farmers reported not notic-
ing any difference in pest pressure between the
CSP and their own seed plot.
The PRA results also suggest that farmers
could observe differences in germination condi-
tions, seedling growth, mixtures, weed and
pest pressure, and yield. However, in the dis-
cussions, it was evident that they did not seri-
ously observe some parameters of crop growth
in which scientists are interested—e.g., timing
of flowering, number of panicles, number of
grains per panicle, and quality of the grain.
Farmers’ findings also differed across sites.
Compared with farmers in Rangpur participat-
ing farmers in Bogra and Gazipur observed less
the impact of quality seed on weed pressure.
Farmers in Bogra, Rangpur, and Rajshahi used
more pesticides than did farmers in Gazipur.
The differences in observations on the impact of
quality seed could be explained by the different
management practices of the farmers. In areas
where yield level was low and farmers did not
take good care of their crop, the impact of seed
quality may be high. However, we noted that
progressive and knowledgeable farmers were
less impressed with the effect of quality seed
on yield and pest pressure since they have been
using good-quality seed.
The farmers’ own assessment of the impact
of quality seed on reducing yield loss from
pests can be seen in Table 11. The yield loss
saved was the highest on account of diseases,
followed by insect pests. The loss saved was
reported to be least on account of weeds. The
total yield loss saved, according to farmers’ as-
sessment, was 2.5% of the normal yield. It was
25% of the estimated gain in yield from the use
of quality seed.
Conclusions
Seed is a critical resource that is directly under
the farmer’s own disposal. Relatively simple
seed health management techniques enable
farmers to improve seed quality, which they
know is suboptimal at this point. This is par-
ticularly important, considering that Bangla-
44
Table 11. Farmers’ estimates of the effect of seed quality on produc-
tion loss, 2001 T. aman and 2002 boro.
Production loss (%)
Constraint 2001 T. aman 2002 boro
Clean Farmer Percent Clean Farmer Percent
seed seed difference seed seed difference
Insects 2.29 3.18 -0.89 3.59 4.32 -0.73
Diseases 2.07 3.24 -1.17 2.86 4.42 -1.56
Weeds 2.01 2.40 -0.39 3.79 4.03 -0.24
deshi farmers are not heavily dependent on the
market, which they generally consider as not
being reliable with respect to supplying quality
seed at the proper time.
The farmer participatory experiment con-
ducted during SHIP’s first phase demonstrated
to participating farmers as well as to the farm-
ing community what substantial gains could be
reaped by carefully managing the production,
cleaning, and preservation of seeds. Involving
the farmers in such experiments increased their
awareness of the importance of seed health
to crop production. They became confident in
adopting improved technologies for seed man-
agement.
The results show that rice yield could be
increased by at least 10% just from using quality
seeds. A more widespread information dissemi-
nation on seed management practices could
be done through broader media coverage and
through the agricultural extension services, by
creating a cadre of seed entrepreneurs among
farmers in each union. It is estimated that yield
gains from using quality seeds would trans-
late into production gains of US$360 million
a year, if this practice is widely adopted by
Bangladeshi farmers. Such economic gains are
considerable relative to the cost of training and
educating farmers on seed health management.
Another positive outcome of using good-
quality seed is the reduction in pest pressure,
which will reduce the need to use harmful
pesticides. This practice will improve farmers’
health and contribute to environmental protec-
tion in the long run.
Bibliography
Almekinders CJM, Louwaars NP. 1999. Farmers’ seed
production: new approaches and practices. London:
Intermediate Technology Publications.
Almekinders CJM, Louwaars NP, and De Bruijn GH. 1994.
Local seed systems and their importance for an im-
proved seed supply in developing countries. Euphytica
78: 207-211.
Ashby J, Quintos CA, Rivera Y. 1987. Farmer participation
in on-farm varietal trials. Agricultural Research and
Extension Network Discussion Paper No. 22. London:
Overseas Development Institute.
Crissman CC. 1989. Seed potato systems in the philippines:
a case study: Lima: International Potato Center.
Cronwell E, Friis-Hansen E, Turner M. 1992. The seed sector
in developing countries: a framework for performance
analysis. Working Paper No. 65. London: Overseas
Development Institute.
Diaz C, Hossain M, Luis J, Paris T. 1994. Knowledge, at-
titude and practice of seed management technologies in
rice farming in Central Luzon. Philipp. J. Crop Sci. 19:
87-99.
Green T. 1987. Farmer-to-farmer seed exchange in the
eastern Hills of Nepal: the case of Pokhreli Masino rice.
Working Paper 05/87. Dhankuta, (Nepal): Pakhribas
Agricultural Centre.
Jafee S, Srivastava J. 1994. The roles of the private and
public sectors in enhancing the performance of seed
systems. World Bank Res. Observer 9: 97-117.
Louette D, Smale M. 1998. Farmers’ seed selection prac-
tices and maize variety characteristics in a tradition-
ally based Mexican community. CIMMYT Economics
Working Paper 98-04. Mexico (DF): Centro Internacio-
nal de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo.
Louwaars NP, Marrewijk GAM. n.d. Seed supply systems
in developing countries. Wageningen: Technical Centre
for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation.
Lyon F, Afikorah-Danquah S. 1998. Small-scale seed provi-
sion in Ghana: social relations, contracts, and institu-
tions for micro-Enterprise development. Agricultural
Research and Extension Network Paper No. 84. Lon-
don: Overseas Development Institute.
Maredia M, Howard J, Boughton D. 1999. Increasing seed
system efficiency in Africa: concepts, strategies and is-
sues. MSU International Development Working Paper
No. 77. East Lansing (MI): Michigan State University.
Otto HJ. 1985. The current status of seed certification in the
seed industry. Madison (WI): Crop Science Society of
America.
Pal S, Tripp R, Janaiah A. (forthcoming). The public-private
interface and information flow in the rice seed system
of Andhra Pradesh. NCAP Working Paper. New
Delhi.
45
Improved methods of seed production, drying and
preservation at the farmers’ level
M.A. Taher Mia, J.A. Begum, S.M.A Haque, S.M.M. Rahman, A. Rahman, C, Diaz, F. Elazegui, and T.W. Mew
To achieve better rice production, the value of
using good-quality seed is well recognized and
understood. However, in Bangladesh, only 12%
of the total seed requirement is good-quality
seed, produced and distributed by the GO,
NGO, and the private sector (Bhuiyan et al
2002). The rest of the seeds produced and used
by farmers are of unknown quality and remain
out of the certification cycle. It is practically
impossible to produce and supply the total
amount of seed required for the country by the
GO, NGO, or private sector in the near future.
The fact is that farmers usually keep a small
portion of rice after harvest and use these
for seed purposes. Continuous production of
improperly handled seed leads to deteriorating
seed quality and health, resulting in lower yield
(Mew 1997). The literature has shown that seed
carries many pathogens (Hossain and Fakir
1974, Mendoza and Molina 1980, Mia et al 1979,
Singh et al 1972). Seedborne pathogens cause
germination failure; rotting of seed, root, and
coleoptiles; weight loss of the seed; and spotting
and discoloration (Agarwal and Singh 1974,
Kim et al 1984, Mathur et al 1972, Misra and
Vir 1991, Vidyasekaran and Ramadoses 1973).
Besides seedborne pathogens, seeds may also
carry weed seeds, insect-damaged seeds, other
variety mixtures, inert matter, unfilled grain,
and others that further reduce seed quality
(Khare 1999). Farmers seldom practice rogueing
in the field as they think it takes extra labor.
They, however, do some cleaning of weed
panicles and long rice tillers from the bundle,
but this type of cleaning was insufficient.
Therefore, farmer-saved seeds are generally
mixed with weed seed, other rice seeds,
spotted/discolored seed, deformed seed, etc.
Under traditional threshing methods, partially
filled and unfilled grains are also threshed and
46
mixed with the seed. It is not easy to separate
all these through conventional ways such as
winnowing.
For good-quality seed, drying is an
important management component. However,
the technology for seed drying at the farmer’s
level is either expensive or unavailable. Farmers
dry their seed generally on the yard, rarely
on a polythene sheet or woven palm or Hogla
leaf mat. They however know that, just after
harvest, seeds should not be kept under the sun
for the whole day. After three to five drying
cycles, women farmers test the seed to confirm
dryness, following some indigenous tests.
The preservation of seed is a vital step
in seed management. Even a good-quality
seed may be totally damaged if stored under
suboptimal conditions. In most cases, farmer-
saved seeds are badly infested with stored grain
pests and molds, resulting in poor germination
(Mia et al 2000). In Bangladesh, farmers store
their rice seed in different containers using
different practices. Most of the containers are
not suitable for safe storage of seed because
they create conditions that favor rapid growth
and multiplication of insect pests and molds.
Under such a condition, a significant amount of
seeds is directly damaged by insects and rats.
The growth and proliferation of molds reduce
the germination capacity of the seed. This
forces the farmers to use high seeding rates
for planting, which is 85-133% higher than the
recommended rate (Alam and Mustafi 1995,
Hossain et al 2002).
Considering the severity of the problem,
efforts have been made to overcome these
constraints to enable farmers to get higher yield
by using good-quality seed and preventing
seed damage during storage. The increase
in yield and reduction in seeding rate would
contribute to achieving food security in the
country.
The project was designed to address this
issue and to implement different research
activities following a farmer participatory
approach. This is in recognition of the fact
that the traditional topdown approach
could not effectively bring about changes in
farmers’ perception. Participatory research
offers a good alternative—here, all players
are actively involved in the planning for
activities to solve a problem. It is an integrated
approach where action is taken after learning
about a particular situation, to change the
situation for their own benefit. Participatory
research emphasizes the value of learning
by doing and dismisses the abstractions and
irrelevancies of more traditional social science
(Hall et al 1982). Recurring value themes in
participatory research include empowering
the oppressed groups, increasing self-reliance,
and transforming social structures into more
equitable societies (Fernanadez and Tandon
1981, Freire 1970, Hall 1981). This is a very
friendly approach to empower resource-poor
farmers with knowledge and problem-solving
ability. From the outcome of research activities,
the following methods were used to improve
seed quality or produce and preserve good-
quality seed at the farm level.
Methodology
Experimentation in farmers’ fields
Farmers’ saved seed– clean vs unclean
During the first season (2000 boro), 100 g
of clean seed sorted out from each farmer’s
saved seed taken from their storage area were
returned to the 280 participating farmers.
These were grown along with their own
seed in the same parcel. Observations were
made from seedling to crop maturity. Yield
was determined following a crop cut. The
experiment was evaluated by both participating
farmers and researchers. The two groups
compared notes through farmers’ appraisal
meeting and focus group discussion held at the
end of the cropping season. Male and female
farmers were trained to assess seed quality.
Each farmer brought a 3-kg seed lot and they
were taught to identify different seed conditions
and contaminants. Each category was
sorted out from the best quality and healthy
(apparently) seed.
Again, in 2001 boro and 2001 T. aman
seasons, farmer participatory experiments
were conducted in all seven sites with 210 farm
families participating. For this, each farmer
sorted out 1 kg of clean and totally filled
uniform seed from his/her saved seed. Grown
side by side with their own seed differences in
seedling stand, seedling vigor, crop uniformity,
pest pressure, and grain yield were noted. All
agronomic practices were similar in both plots.
From each plot, a 2-m × 3-m harvesting area was
selected. The crop was harvested at maturity
and the yield determined after adjusting
moisture content at 14%.
Field selection for quality seed production
The farmers were trained to choose quality
panicles for seed stocks so that they could
obtain good-quality seed for planting. The
area selected in the field was comparatively
more uniform, with size varying according to
each farmer’s seed requirement. It is about 2
m away from the fields planted to other rice
varieties. The selected area was marked with
flags in the four corners of the seed plot to
attract the attention of other farmers. Rogueing
in the selected area was done three times—at
maximum tillering, at booting, and 1 wk before
harvesting. During the first two times, weed
and other varieties mixed with the crop were
removed. At final rogueing, another parameter,
“dirty panicles” (caused by sheath rot/other
diseases and insects), was taken into account.
At ripening stage, seed plots were harvested
and the crops threshed separately to avoid
mixture. Threshing was done by two medium
strong biting in two sides of the bundle to avoid
threshing of unfilled or partially filled grain.
Seed cleaning by flotation method
Just before sowing, seeds were cleaned again
by flotation method. For this, water density
was increased by adding salt or urea. Seeds
were then placed in such water in a bucket (or
any other open container). After stirring the
47
water for 10-15 min, seeds that floated were
removed and seeds that settled at the bottom
were collected, washed in clean water two to
three times, and incubated to induce sprouting
according to farmers’ practice.
Seed drying—farmers’ practice
To dry the seeds, resource-poor farmers use
a simple table built using locally available
materials such as bamboo. A mechanical seed
dryer was also developed and demonstrated.
Women farmers are very particular with testing
the seed moisture before storage; they follow
traditional ways to determine the safe seed
moisture. The most common method is biting
the whole seed. Others remove the husk by
squeezing the paddy using both hands and
putting it between the teeth. Some use their feet
to check seed moisture content. Paddy is put
on the floor and grains are forcefully twisted
four to five times with the feet to remove the
husk. Then, they examine if the rice is broken
or not: broken means there remains a lot of
moisture; not broken means less moisture. In
some areas, however, women farmers put a few
seeds between their fingers and carefully listen
to the sound. These are the practices the women
farmers had inherited through generations. The
farmers’ indigenous test for seed moisture was
validated by comparing its results with values
given by a moisture meter.
Seed dryer
A multipurpose mechanical seed dryer was
also developed and its use demonstrated.
Farmers were asked to comment and
modifications were done to have a simple
and cheaper unit. The modified low-cost
multipurpose dryer was again demonstrated
to get more comments and finally obtain
acceptance.
Search for safe seed storage practices
Group discussions were conducted with women
farmers at all sites. Different storage containers
and additives were collected and assessed.
These options were compared by each farmer
with his own practice. Among the containers
tested were the motka (an earthen container),
48
jute sack with polythene lining inside, motka
with both sides painted, tin, plastic drum,
steel drum, silver container, polythene bag,
and lemofoil bag. The additives tested were
dry neem leaves, tobacco leaves, bishkatali
leaves, eucalyptus leaves, tamarind seed, chalk
powder, and naphthalene. In on-station trials,
ash was also included as another additive.
The additives were placed on top of the seed,
except for tamarind seed and naphthalene,
which were mixed with the seed. The container
being tested was completely filled with the seed
and additives and the lid tightly closed. Side
by side was the treatment using farmers’ own
practice—seeds were dried several times during
the storage period. On-station experiments
were also conducted for three seasons to
validate findings at the farm level. Maximum
(max) and minimum (min) temperature and
percent relative humidity (RH) of the store
house was recorded daily at 0900 and 1400 h.
Observations were made on insect infestation,
insect damaged seed, moldy seed, and seed
germination following standard methods.
Results and discussion
Farmers’ participatory experiment to improve
seed quality
Qualitative data were gathered. Germination
was higher and seedling stand was more robust
in the clean seed plot. The vigor of the seedlings
from clean seed was also higher based on
growth parameters and stoutness. There was a
lower incidence of sheath rot, brown spot, and
narrow brown spot in the clean seed plot. Plant
height was more uniform compared with that
in the unclean seed plot. The average yield data
of the 2000 boro crop indicated higher yields
in the clean seed plots at all sites (Table 1). The
paired T test showed that this yield difference
between the two seeds was significant only at
Bogra. However, when all sites were considered,
the yield in the clean seed plot was significantly
higher. The average yield advantage of using
clean seed was 9.01%.
In the 2001 crop season, average yield in
the clean seed plot was higher at all sites in
both boro and T. aman seasons. The yields in
both clean and unclean seed plot, however,
varied with the site. In the boro season, the
highest yields in the clean and unclean seed
plots were recorded at Rajshahi; those during
T. aman were noted in Bogra. During boro,
yield increase in the clean seed plot varied
with site and ranged from 9.72 to 14.77%—the
highest at Barisal and the lowest at Gazipur.
In this season, the average yield increase in
clean seed plots across sites was 11.77% (Fig. 1).
Similarly, in the T. aman season, yield increases
at different sites ranged from 7.50 to 19.11%,
with an average of 13.3% (Fig. 2). A similar yield
increase attributed to using clean seed was also
reported by Diaz et al (5). They reported a 7-20%
yield increase in an experiment conducted in
the Philippines.
The quality of farmer-saved seed improved
markedly following field seed health selection
and separate harvesting and threshing. Mixture
with weed seed amounted to zero and that with
other rice varieties was nil. Due to removal
of sheath rot-infected panicles, the amount of
discolored grain was also very low.
Cleaning the seed by flotation method
helped remove unfilled and partially filled
grain and also insect-damaged seed. But it
failed to reduce variety mixture and filled
spotted seed. However, with the development
of sound storage practices, insect damage was
no longer observed. This method therefore has
limited advantages.
Drying table—an innovation from farmers
Farmers successfully developed and used a
seed drying table. The farmers used these tables
Table 1. Effect of seed quality on rice yield, 2000 boro season.
to protect the seed from chickens and children.
The advantages are that there is no need for
any attendant and no need to wait for the yard
to dry after a rain. They could have air-drying,
even inside the house. And the table could be
used for other purposes such as threshing seed,
cooking, etc. Because the seed does not come
in contact with the soil, seed color remains
bright. Only a small amount of seed could be
dried with this method; it is therefore ideal for
resource-poor farmers.
When the farmers’ method of testing seed
for safe moisture for storage was compared
with a moisture meter, results indicated that
about 50-60% of the farmers could recognize
the safe moisture level of the seed, which is
around 12%. The moisture content values
obtained were found to be 3-4% higher than
the standard. From this finding, we can
recommend that farmers dry their seed for 1-2 d
more, even if they think that it is dried properly.
The capacity of the drying table is 27-80 kg
seed per batch, which takes 4-13 h. The power
source is a bicycle and the heating source is a
rice husk stove. A longer period is needed for a
greater paddy volume. The cost of drying seed
with high initial moisture is Tk 41 per 40-kg
��������������������
�
���������� ������������
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
���� ����� ���� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���
��������
Fig. 1. Yield from clean and unclean farmers’ seed at different sites
during 2001 boro.

Location Cases
Grain yield Percent T value Level of
(no.) (t ha−1) significance ��������������������
Farmer Farmer �
���������� ������������
seed- seed- �
clean unclean �
�
Barisal 27 4.84 4.33 11.8 1.51 0.137
�
Bogra 26 5.79 5.04 15.0 1.97 0.055
Chuadanga 26 6.08 5.79 5.0 0.76 0.452 �
Gazipur 19 4.77 4.34 10.0 0.97 0.336 �
���� ����� ���� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���
Habigonj 18 7.19 6.82 5.4 0.99 0.331
Rajshahi 25 5.28 4.80 10.0 1.39 0.172
��������
Rangpur 31 6.70 6.37 5.2 1.27 0.209 Fig. 2. Yield from clean and unclean farmers’ seed at different sites
All sites 172 5.81 5.33 9.01 2.83 0.005 during 2001 T. aman.

49
seed. The farmers who saw the demonstration
were satisfied with the dryer performance, but
the price they offered for it was very low. About
91% of the farmers wanted to rent the dryer.
Seed storage: experimenting at farmers’ houses
Of more than 100 treatments tested in seven
sites, a good number of treatments were found
to protect the seeds from insect or mold attack
and the germination capacity remained at
more than 80%. Seed moisture content at the
beginning of the storage period did not change
much in these treatments. The best treatments
are shown in Table 2. Seed stored in painted
motka without any additive showed 83%
germination and the number of insect-damaged
seeds (IDS) per kilogram of seed was only 90.
Results were almost similar when tobacco or
neem leaves were added. In some sites, neem
leaves were found less effective. In Rangpur,
additives had no effect. The highest germination
and lowest IDS were found when naphthalene
was added to the seed in a plastic drum. No IDS
was found when seeds were stored in a lemofoil
bag; seed germination was very high. However,
this bag was found to be damaged by rats and
is therefore not recommended for farmers’ use.
Silver containers with naphthalene or tobacco
leaf, steel drum, or tin (with or without any
additives) were found promising under farmers’
conditions. In Gazipur, motka is made locally
and our experiment showed that, if painted on
both sides, it is very useful for safe storage of
rice seed. Painting a motka does not cost much
and, if all farmers in the district use painted
motka, this will encourage local entrepreneurs.
Results indicate that an important factor
to consider in preventing insect infestation
during storage is the container. Naphthalene
is a common household insect repellent that
protects clothing from insect damage. The plant
materials found promising in the current tests
might have insect-repelling properties. The
moisture content of the seed did not change
much in almost all treatments (Table 2). Higher
seed germination and lower insect infestation
were observed in the jute bag with polythene,
but we do not recommend it for farmers’ use
because it is very susceptible to damage by rat
or insects. Its performance as a good storage
container is not sustainable. In other villages,
some farmers continued to use the jute bag with
polythene to store their seed and they used the
same polythene for several seasons, generally
overlooking any damage caused by insects.
Farmers may use either painted motka, plastic
drum, or any type of metal drum for safe
storage of their precious seeds. In all cases, the
lid must be airtight.

Table 2. Treatments used to retain seed quality under farmers’ conditions during 2000 boro season.

Storage container Additives Seed moisture (%) Seed moisture (%) Germination IDS kg—1
at start of storage at end of storage (%) seed (no.)

Painted motka No 13.73 13.13 83 90

Painted motka Neem leaves 13.2 13.5 83 96
Painted motka Tobacco leaves 14.8 14.5 80 0
Plastic drum No 11.67 11.67 98 86.67
Plastic drum Neem leaves 12.10 12.70 91.33 80
Plastic drum Naphthalene 13.3 13.7 97 0
Plastic drum Tobacco leaves 12.6 12.8 86 0
Plastic drum Bishkatali leaves 12.0 12.4 96 30
Lemo foil bag Neem leaves 12.2 12.4 95.5 0
Silver container Naphthalene 12.3 12.9 90 20
Silver container Tobacco leaves 13.0 13.8 90 0
Steel drum None 13.5 13.2 86 0
Tin container No 12.00 11.83 89 73.33
Tin container Tobacco leaves 13.3 13.6 88 0
Tin conatiner Naphthalene 13.4 4.0 86.3 5
Tin container Bishkatali leaves 12.3 12.8 91 38.5
Tin container Neem leaves 13.0 13.1 89.3 22.5

50
Seed storage: on-station experiment
In the first experiment, the results showed that
the number of insects per kilogram of seed
was significantly higher (156.4) in the motka
than in the metal drum (99.8), plastic drum
(102.0), and sack with polythene (116.1). These
values were similar statistically. The number
of IDS per kilogram of seed was highest when
seeds were stored in motka (1496.2), while it
was lowest (465.6) in the plastic drum; the sack
with polythene gave moderate values (Table
3). In the second experiment, the number of
insects was also lowest in the sack (81.0) similar
to that in the plastic drum (89.2). The insect
population and IDS per kilogram of seed
were highest in motka. Seed damage caused by
insects was lower in the sack and plastic drum.
The moisture content of the stored seed was
lowest in the plastic drum and highest in motka.
Results in both seasons indicated that, of all
containers tested, the plastic drum was the best
for seed storage and that seeds were protected
from damage by storage insects. Sacks with
polythene and metal drums were likewise
effective. However, the sacks with polythene
became damaged by insects, the rice seed itself,
and partly by rodents after one season of use. It
was therefore necessary to change the bag every
season, not the best option for resource poor-
farmers .
In both experiments, the number of insects
and IDS was significantly lower when one
naphthalene ball was used per kilogram of
seed. The effectiveness of the other additives
was moderate (Table 4).
The duration of storage was found directly
related to insect population and seed damage
in both seasons—i.e., the longer the storage
duration, the higher the infestation and seed
damage (Table 5). Six weeks after storage, the
number of storage insects per kilogram of
seed in experiments 1 and 2 was 93.9 and 34.8,
respectively. At the end of the storage period
after 24 wk, the number was increased to 146.9
and 190.4, respectively. Similarly, the number of
IDS per kilogram of seed after 6 wk in storage
in the first and second experiment was 570.3
and 77.0 and, at the end of storage, was 1290.3
and 2019.2, respectively. The relative humidity
(RH) and temperature of the house where the
storage experiment was conducted are shown
in Figures 3 and 4. During the first experiment,
the maximum and minimum %RH at the
beginning of the storage were respectively 86
and 82%, which then gradually declined. The
minimum RH (43 and 33%) values were noted
on the 18th week, increasing again thereafter.
This was somewhat similar to the trend of seed
moisture content of stored seed at different
durations. Insect population and number of
damaged seed at week 18 did not increase
significantly over week 12, probably due to very
low %RH. During the second experiment, the
maximum RH remained below 60% during
most of the storage period. The minimum
RH was also very low. Only during the last
2 wk did the maximum RH go above 60%.
This might be the reason for the lower insect
development (Thomson 1979).

Table 3. Mean effect of container on insect population and seed damage irrespective of additives
and duration of storage of 2002 boro and 2002 T. aman rice seed.a

Container 2002 boro 2002 T. aman

Seed Insect Insect Seed Insect Insect
moisture kg−1 damaged moisture kg–1 damaged
(%) seed seed kg–1 (%) seed seed kg–1
(no.) (no.) (no.) (no.)

Plastic drum 12.22 a 102.0 b 465.6 d 11.86 c 89.2 bc 707.4 c

Motka 12.61 a 156.4 a 1496.2 a 12.83 a 216.8 a 1877.8 a
Sack with polythene 12.31 a 116.1 b 921.9 c 12.05 b 81.0 c 633.8 c
Metal drum 12.35 a 99.8 b 1032.3 b 12.17 b 111.4 b 1044.8 b
5% LSD 0.78 19.8 144.4 0.12 29.8 224.6

51
 During the 2002 boro crop season, the of naphthalene should be explored. The low
incidence of field fungi was significantly lower incidence of storage fungi in all treatments may
in the metal drum, followed by the sack with be attributed to the initial low seed moisture
polythene lining. In the 2002 T. aman season, content and low % RH of the storehouse (Figs.
however, it was lower in motka but high in 3 and 4). The storehouse was well-ventilated to
the other containers. During 2002 boro, this maintain a low-humidity environment.
trend was maintained. In the 2002 T. aman, In 2002 boro at 14 DAS, the percentage of
however, fungal incidence was similar in all normal seedlings from seeds stored in a sack
containers. In general, the incidence of storage with polythene (85.5%) was significantly higher
fungi was low in both seasons. Among the than that in motka (69.4%) but the same as that
additives tested, naphthalene was effective in the plastic drum (84.9%). In contrast, dead
in both seasons. Rahman and Mia (1998) also seed was highest (30.2) in motka. In experiment
reported a high incidence of storage fungi in 2, seeds from plastic and metal drums showed
rice seed stored in earthen containers. In the similar amounts of normal seedling, which
present experiment, the overall incidence of were significantly higher than those from motka
storage fungi was low (Table 6), and this could and sack with polythene. Again, dead seed
be due to the lower %RH (Figs. 3 and 4). Ghosh was highest in motka (Table 8). The moisture
(1951) observed that the development of storage content of the seeds stored in motka was higher
fungi was rapid on all rice samples exposed than that of seeds put in other containers.
to 65-100% RH and at temperatures 30 oC and The detrimental effect of high seed moisture
above. Similarly, the incidence of storage fungi has also been reported by other workers
was also low when naphthalene was added (Christensen and Lopez 1965, Mian and Fakir
to the seed (Table 7). The fungicidal property 1989).

Table 4. Mean effect of additives on insect population and seed damage in storage irrespective of container and duration
of storage.a

Container 2002 boro 2002 T. aman

Moisture Insect kg–1 IDS kg–1 Moisture Insect kg–1 IDS kg–1
content (%) seed (no.) seed (no.) content (%) seed (no.) seed (no.)

Control 12.39 ab 204.1 a 1808.8 a 12.39 ab 181.2 a 1874.8 a

Ash (1-in layer) 12.35 ab 108.5 c 954.6 cd 12.35 ab 123.8 bc 1286.6 b
Ash (0.5-in layer) 12.39 ab 108.4 c 995.9 c 12.15 cd 145.6 ab 1209.8 b
Chalk powder (1-in layer) 12.38 ab 116.2 bc 803.7 d 12.45 a 146.0 ab 1078.6 b
Chalk powder (0.5-in layer 12.48 a 114.4 bc 908.3 cd 12.38 ab 157.4 ab 1319.8 b
Neem leaf (1-in layer) 12.43 a 116.9 bc 1343.7 b 12.20 bcd 123.4 bc 1378.2 b
Neem leaf (0.5-in layer) 12.43 a 138.8 b 1308.9 b 12.24 bc 132.4 b 1243.6 b
Naphthalene ball 1 kg seed—1 12.17 c 65.8 d 248.0 f 11.89 e 30.0 d 50.6 c
Naphthalene ball 1/2 kg seed—1 12.32 b 93.9 cd 439.2 e 12.02 de 81.6 c 151.8 c
5% LSD 0.12 29.7 216.6 0.19 44.8 337.0

a
Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the P=0.05 level by LSD.

Table 5. Mean effect of storage duration on insect population and seed damage in storage
irrespective of container and additives.a

Duration (wk) 2002 boro 2003 T. aman

Moisture Insect kg–1 IDS kg–1 Moisture Insect kg–1 IDS kg–1
content (%) seed (no.) (no.) content (%) seed (no.)

6 12.35 ab 93.9 c 570.3 c 12.27 b 34.8 c 77.0 d

12 12.00 b 115.8 bc 977.1 b 12.25 b 129.4 b 703.8 c
18 12.22 ab 117.7 b 1078.4 b 11.99 c 143.8 b 1463.8 b
24 12.92 a 146.9 a 1290.3 a 12.40 a 190.4 a 2019.2 a
5% LSD 0.78 19.8 144.4 0.12 29.8 224.6
a
Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P=0.05 level by LSD.

52
 Treatment of seed samples with ash at both RH in the storehouse was much lower than
levels, chalk powder with (1 inch layer), and that during the third storage (Figs. 3 and 5).
naphthalene (1 ball kg–1 seed) were equally Farmers in Bangladesh generally dry the boro
effective and significantly better than others seed during storage to protect their seed, but
with respect to normal seedlings (Table 9). they still cannot retain seed quality because the
The average number of abnormal or diseased container is not airtight.
seedlings was low in all treatments, ranging As in previous experiments, the additives
from 0.3 to 0.6. In experiment 2, the highest gave the added benefit of protecting the seed
percentage of normal seedlings was obtained from pest damage while in storage. All the
from seeds stored with one naphthalene ball tested additives were better than the control
per kilogram of seed. Among the different with respect to insect population and seed
treatments, abnormal/diseased seedlings damage by insects. Among the additives,
ranged from 0.1 to 0.3%. naphthalene was the best. The least amount of
In 2003 boro, at the end of the storage field and storage fungi was also recorded in this
period, moisture content of the seed (11.35%), treatment (Table 11).
insect number (69.7), and IDS (332.2) were The percentages of normal seedlings in
lowest in the plastic drum, followed by painted all the tested containers were above 80%.
motka and metal drum. Similarly, no difference The highest was in samples collected from a
in incidence of field fungi was observed among plastic drum (87.29%) and a metal drum. The
the three containers, but incidence of storage percentage of normal seedlings was lowest
fungi was higher in the metal drum, lower in in painted motka (80.62%) (Table 12). Normal
the plastic drum, and the same in the painted seedling was significantly higher over the
motka (Table 10). During this season, the RH of control where ash was used as the additive
the storehouse ranged from 70 to 83% up to 14 but similar to the neem leaf and naphthalene
wk of storage (Fig. 5). During this period, the treatments. The latter two were again similar to
level of RH did not register below 60%, which the control (Table 13).
might have influenced the seed moisture in
the metal drum (which was not fully airtight) Conclusions and recommendations
and favored the development of storage The interventions in farmers’ seed health
insects and molds (Henry and Ketllewell management practices brought about many
1996). Even in this highly conducive condition, benefits. Data averaged over four seasons
seed infestation in the plastic drum was low, revealed that 10-15% rice yield could be
indicating its effectiveness in protecting the increased by using good-quality seed
seed. During the first experiment in 2002, the for planting. Farmer-saved seed can be

Table 6. Effect of storage container on population of seedborne
fungi.a
Container Incidence of Incidence of
field fungi (%) storage fungi (%)
2002 2002 2002 2002
boro T. aman boro T. aman
Plastic drum 10.61ab 13.90 a 0.76b 0.31 a
Motka 10.93a 11.19 b 2.01a 0.36 a
Sack with 9.80b 13.42 a 0.80b 0.47 a
polythene Neem leaf (1-in layer) 9.68 abc 13.18 abc 1.57 ab 0.31 bc
Metal 8.50c 13.26 a 0.64b 0.38 a
5% LSD 1.26 1.13 0.40 0.18
a
Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P=0.05 level by
LSD.
Table 7. Mean effect of additives on population of seedborne fungi.a
Container Field fungi (%) Storage fungi (%)
2002 2002 2002 2002
boro T. aman boro T. aman
Control 10.36 ab 13.23 abc 1.97 a 0.60 a
Ash (1-in layer) 10.16 ab 13.85 ab 0.99 bcd 0.54 ab
Ash (0.5-in layer) 10.35 ab 14.29 a 0.81 cd 0.42 abc
Chalk powder (1-in layer) 11.07 a 12.54 bc 0.56 d 0.29 bc
Chalk powder (0.5-in layer) 10.21 ab 12.93 abc 0.87 cd 0.41 abc
Neem leaf (0.5-in layer) 10.61 ab 12.83 abc 1.35 bc 0.35 abc
Naphthalene 1 ball/kg–1 seed 9.10 bc 11.60 c 0.48 d 0.28 bc
Naphthalene1 ball/2 kg–1 seed 8.08 c 12.05 c 0.88 cd 0.23 c
5% LSD 1.89 1.70 0.59 0.27
a
Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P=0.05 level by
LSD.

53
 �������������������
���
��
�������������� ������������� ��������� ��������
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
�
� � � � � � � � � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��
����

Fig. 3. Weekly average values of temperature (oC) and relative humidity (%) in the storehouse during seed
storage, 2002 boro.

������������������������
��
����������� ����������� �������� ��������
��
��
��
��

��
��
��

�
� � � � � � � � � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��
����

Fig. 4. Weekly average values of temperature (oC) and relative humidity (%) in the storehouse during seed
storage, 2002 T. aman.

������������������������
��
��
��
��
�� ����������� ����������� �������� ��������
��
��
��
��
�
� � � � � � � � � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��
����

Fig. 5. Weekly average values of temperature (oC) and relative humidity (%) in the storehouse during seed storage,
2003 boro.

54
Table 8. Mean effect of container on seedling growth 14 d after Table 9. Mean effect of additives on seedling growth 14 d after
sowing (DAS).a sowing.a

Container Normal seedling (%) 14 DAS Dead seed (%) Container Normal seedling (%) Dead seed (%)
2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002
boro T. aman boro T. aman boro T. aman boro T. aman

Plastic drum 84.9 a 82.8 a 14.7 c 17.1 c
Motka 69.4 c 77.3 b 30.2 a 22.6 a
Sack with polythene 85.5 a 78.3 b 14.3 c 21.6 b
Metal drum 83.8 b 82.7 a 15.8 b 16.8 c
5% LSD 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.4
Means follwed by the same letter are not significantly different at P=0.05 level by LSD.
a
The number of diseased or abnormal seedling was very low and is not shown.
Table 10. Mean effect of container, irrespective of additive, on stored
pest incidence and seed moisture during 2003 boro season.
Container Seed Insects kg–1 Insect Field Storage
moisture seed (no.) damaged seed fungi (%) fungi (%)
(%) kg–1 (no.)
Painted motka 12.05 b 156.2 ab 559.7 b 9.37 a 4.83 b
Plastic drum 11.35 c 69.7 b 332.2 b 8.92 a 6.37 b
Metal drum 13.02 a 247.6 a 1402.3 a 7.79 a 7.96 a
5% LSD 0.35 110.6 544.2 2.91 2.35
a
Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P=0.05 level by
LSD.
improved to obtain this gain. Farmer-friendly
technologies in seed drying and preservation
Control 80.0 cd 78.9 c 19.5 ab 20.9 a
Ash (1-in layer) 82.9 a 79.3 bc 16.7 c 20.5 ab
Ash (0.5-in layer) 81.9 ab 79.8 bc 17.8 c 20.0 ab
Chalk powder (1-in layer) 81.6 a 79.8 bc 17.9 bc 20.1 ab
Chalk powder (0.5-in layer) 80.0 cd 78.6 c 19.6 a 21.2 a
Neem leaf (1-in layer) 80.3 b 82.4 a 19.7 a 17.3 c
Neem leaf (0.5-in layer) 79.9 d 79.8 bc 19.5 ab 20.0 ab
Naphthalene 1 ball/kg–1 seed 81.6 abc 82.8 a 17.9 bc 17.1 c
Naphthalene1 ball/2 kg–1 seed 79.6 d 81.2 ab 20.0 a 18.6 bc
5% LSD 1.6 2.1 1.6 2.1
a
Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P=0.05 level by
LSD.
Table 11. Effect of different local additives on seed moisture and pest
infestation of stored rice after the 2003 boro harvest.a
Additive Seed Insects kg–1 Insect Field Storage
moisture seed (no.) damaged seed fungi fungi
(%) kg–1 (no.) (%) (%)
None 12.21 b 313.8 a 1605.1 a 11.39 a 6.61 a
Asha 12.24 b 185.5 b 867.8 b 8.89 ab 6.67 ab
Neem leafb 12.41 a 118.8 bc 532.2 bc 8.33 ab 7.61 ab
Naphthalenec 11.70 c 13.1 c 53.8 c 6.17 b 4.67 b
5% LSD 0.40 127.7 628.4 3.36 2.71

were developed and validated using a farmer a

Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P=0.05 level by LSD.
participatory approach. By following these One-inch layer placed on paper on top of the stored seed. cPlaced on the top, the middle,
b

and bottom of the seed (one ball kg–1 seed).

technologies, the overall quality of farmer-
saved seed was improved. The remarkable
increase was in germination percentage; it Table 12. Percentage of normal seedling, dead seed and abnormal/
increased at least by 20%. Seeding rate was diseased seedlings from seed stored in different containers after,
2003 boro harvest.a
reduced by 41.5% as a result of using quality
seed for planting. Proper seed storage reduced Container Normal Dead seed (%) Abnormal/diseased
seedlings (%) seedlings (%)
damage by insects. At least 4% of the seeds
were protected from insect infestation and Painted motka 80.62 b 17.48 a 1.89 a
other damages brought about by poor storage Plastic drum 87.29 a 10.73 b 1.98 a
Metal drum 86.44 a 11.60 b 2.04 a
conditions. The technology developed for 5% LSD 4.55 4.20 0.75
farmers’ use needed very little extra costs and a
Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P=0.05 level by
workload. Moreover, these are environment- LSD.
friendly. Four years of field observation
indicated that disease and insect pressure total annual benefit (extra production and seed
was lower in clean seed plots and farmers saving) will be about 3,000 crore.
seldom used any pesticides, thus helping The full benefits of the technology could be
reduce production costs and minimize health enjoyed if the technology is disseminated to all
risks. A modest calculation showed that, if the farmers and its sustainable adoption ensured.
technologies were followed by all farmers in These recommendations may be considered.
Bangladesh, then 3.5 million t of additional rice • The DAE should take the lead in
could be produced at no extra cost. In terms of disseminating the technology through
money, this will be about Tk 2,450 crore. The partnership with leading NGOs.

55
Table 13. Percentage of normal seedlings, dead seed, and abnormal/ and extension in Bangladesh. Paper presented at the
diseased seedlings from seed stored with different additives after National Workshop on Rice Research and Extension,
the 2003 boro harvest.a 29-31 Jan 2002, Bangladesh Rice Research Institute,
Gazipur, Bangladesh.
Additive Normal Dead seed (%) Abnormal/diseased
Christensen CM, Lopez FLC. 1965. Relation of moisture
seedlings (%) seedlings (%)
content and length of storage to changes in rough rice.
None 79.11 b 18.53 a 2.47 a Phytopathology 58: 953-956.
Asha 89.86 a 8.44 b 1.69 a Diaz C, Hossain M, Merca S, Mew TW. 2001. Seed
Neem leafb 84.72 ab 13.22 ab 2.05 a quality and effect on rice yield: findings from
Naphthalenec 85.44 ab 12.89 ab 1.67 a farmer participatory experiments in Central Luzon,
5% LSD 5.25 4.85 0.87 Philippines. In: Mew TW, Cottyn B, eds. Seed health
and seed associated microorganisms for rice disease
a
Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P=0.05 level by LSD.
b
One-inch layer placed on paper on top of the stored seed. cPlaced on top, middle, and
management. IRRI Limited Proceedings 6.
bottom of the seed (ball kg–1 seed). Fernandes W, Tandon R. 1981. Participatory research and
evaluation: experiments in research as a process of
liberation. New Delhi: Indian Social Institute.
• An extensive TOT should be conducted to Freire P. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York:
develop the staff. Herder & Herder.
• A few participatory trials cum demons- Ghosh JT. 1951. The effect of environmental factors on the
fungal deterioration of stored rice grain. Sci. Cult. 17:
trations could be arranged in each upazilla. 42-43. (Rev. App. Mycol. 31: 505.)
• Local government organizations (UP Hall BL. 1981. Participatory research, popular knowledge
members) and community leaders could be and power: a personal reflection. Convergence 14(3):
used for technology transfer. 6-7.
Hall GL, Gillette A, Tandon R. 1982. Creating knowledge:
• Communication materials (e.g., video a monopoly? Participatory research in development.
and other media) should be developed to New Delhi: Society for Participatory Research in Asia.
disseminate and scale-up the technology Henry RJ, Kettlewell PS. 1996. Cereal grain quality. The
University Press, Cambridge: Chapman & Hall.
during the project. DAE may want to work
Hossain M, Janaiah A, Husain M, Nahar F. 2002. Dialogue
with partners such as BRRI and RDA, and on rice seed delivery system and seed policy. The role
NGOs such as BRAC, Proshika, GKF, and of seed delivery system in Bangladesh: institutional and
CARE. policy issues. Paper presented at the policy dialogue
under the CPD-PETRRA-DOlSys collaborative project,
• The extension and training materials 8 Jan 2002, CPD, Dhaka.
developed could be used as part of the Hossain N, Fakir GA. 1974. Prevalence of microflora
syllabus in farmers’ field schools. associated with rough rice grains prior to storage.
• In each village, interested farmers may be Bangladesh J. Agric. Sci. 2: 169. (abstr.)
Khare MN. 1999. Seed health care in seed quality control.
encouraged to become seed producers and Indian Phytopathol. 52(3): 305.
marketing assistance must be provided to Kim WG, Park JS, Yu SH. 1984. Seed infection and damage
them. A block supervisor or extension officer to rice seeds and seedlings by seed borne Gerlachia
oryzae. Kor. J. Plant Prot. 23 (2): 126-131.
may be empowered to issue guidelines to
Mathur SB, Mallya JI, Neergaard P. 1972. Seed-borne
ensure seed quality. infection of Trichoconis padwickii in rice, distribution and
• A simple pictorial manual on the technology damage to seeds and seedlings. Proc. Int. Seed Testing
may be published and distributed among Assoc. 37(22): 803-810.
Mendoza AM, Molina RP. 1980. A study on seed-borne
farmers in the whole country. fungi associated with rice seed and their effect on rice
seedlings. Araneta Res. J. (Philipp.) 27 (1-4): 50-69.
References Mew TW. 1997. Seed health testing: progress towards the
Agarwal VK, and Singh OV. 1974. Relative percentage 21st century, In: Hutchins and Ruces, eds. Development
incidence of seed-borne fungi associated with different in rice seed health testing policy. p 129-138.
varieties of rice seeds. Seed Res.2: 23-25. Mia MA. T, Shajahan AKM, Miah SA. 1979. Micro-
Alam MS, Mustafi BAA. 1995. MV rice seed use status and organisms associated with spotted and discoloured rice
constraints at the farm level. Paper presented at the grains in Bangladesh. Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 4(5): 8.
Seed Technology Research Workshop, 9 Oct 1995, Mia MAT, Shirin AJ Akter S, Miah S. 2000. Quality of
Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council, Dhaka, farmer-saved seed in Barisal, Gazipur, Chuadanga,
Bangladesh. and Hobiganj districts of Bangladesh and impact of
Bhuiyan NI, Paul DNR, Jabber MA. 2002. Feeding the manual cleaning. Paper presented at the Review and
extra millions by 2025, challenges for rice research Planning Meeting on Rice Seed Health Improvement

56
 for Increasing Yield and Reducing Pest Pressures in
Bangladesh, BIDS, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Mian IH, Fakir GA. 1989. Fungi, moisture content and
germinability of rough rice grains during storage. Seed
Res. 17: 169-173.
Misra AK. Vir D. 1991. Assessment of losses due to
discoloration of paddy seeds. III. Loss in seed weight in
different rice cultivars due to seed discoloration. Int. J.
Trop. Plant Dis.9(2): 245-249.
Rahman M, Mia MAT. 1998. Studies on the health status of
farmer’s stored seed of rice. Bangladesh J. Plant Pathol.
14 (1&2): 37-40.
Singh OV, Agarwal VK, Singh RA. 1972. Effect of fungicidal
sprays on the quantum of seed-borne infection and
germination of rice seeds. Oryza 9: 103-105.
Thomson JR. 1979. An introduction to seed technologies.
London: Leonard Hill.
Vidhyasekaran P, Ramadoss N. 1973. Quantitative and
qualitative losses in paddy due to helminthosporiose
epidemic. Indian Phytopathol. 26: 479-484.

57
Standardization of quality measurement of rice seed:
how far is impurity acceptable?
T. W. Mew

Results from our studies conducted under this level to 90% resulted in a 14% increase
the Rice Seed Health Improvement Project in yield (Tables 1-3). Hence, the current seed
(SHIP) can be synthesized to arrive at a set quality level used by farmers obtained either
of standards that can be recommended to from their own harvest or from other sources is
the government to ensure the production of below the level needed to take advantage of the
high-quality seeds by private or public seed genetic potential of modern improved varieties.
producer. This is inadequate in establishing a seed
The results provide answers to the following standard for crop establishment or planting.
queries: Why is there a need to standardize In Bangladesh, through farmer participatory
the quality level of seed for planting? Who experiments that compared the performance of
needs the standards? What is the basis for high-quality seed with that of farmer seed at
establishing the standard? seven SHIP sites, there was an average increase
of 11.2 and 12.8% in grain yield in the 2000-02
The need for standardization Boro and T. aman seasons, respectively, from
During the implementation of the seed health the use of high-quality seed (Tables 1 and 2).
project, it was realized there were problems
associated with farmer-saved seed for planting. Table 1. Effect of seed quality on grain yield (t ha–1), 2000-02
Extensive losses of rice yield and grain quality boro seasons, Bangladesh.
were experienced by farmers because of the Site High-quality seed Farmers’ seed Percent
increase
low-quality seed they used for planting.
Barisal 5.45 4.7 13.83
Farmers were not aware of or had no sufficient
Bogra 5.8 5.2 12.60
knowledge on quality seed for crop production
Chuadanga 5.5 5.0 10.84
and pest management. In using poor-quality
Gazipur 5.3 4.9 9.28
seed as planting material, the productivity
Rangpur 5.6 5.1 9.34
and genetic potential of modern and improved Habiganj 4.5 4.1 10.44
varieties are reduced. Farmers have to use a Rajshaji 6.8 6.1 11.62
high seeding rate to compensate for poor crop Mean 5.6 5.0 11.18
establishment. The other problem associated
with low-quality seed is the inadequate
seed storage method. There is thus a need to
establish a set of standards on quality seed for Table 2. Effect of seed quality on grain yield (t ha–1), 2000-01
T. aman seasons, Bangladesh.
planting or crop establishment and to improve
Site High-quality Farmers’ seed Percent
the conditions and tools (containers) used for seed increase
seed storage. Barisal 4.8 4.4 7.45
Bogra 4.0 3.7 8.77
Some benefits in the use of high quality=seeds Chuadanga 4.0 3.5 13.79
On the basis of results of our experiments on Gazipur 4.5 3.8 16.49
seed health improvement, conducted not only Rangpur 4.0 3.5 13.56
in Bangladesh but also in other countries like Habiganj 4.4 3.7 18.33
the Philippines and Vietnam, the farmers’ seed Rajshaji 4.0 3.6 11.02
quality level ranges from 50 to 80%. Raising Mean 4.2 3.8 12.80

58
The data again showed that the present quality
of farmer seed is insufficient to maintain Table 3. Effect of quality seeds on weed, insect pest, and disease
productivity. Increasing the quality level will incidence, 2000-02, Bangladesh.
result in better yield. Season Variable High-quality Farmers’ Difference
Furthermore, we observed that weeds, insect seed seed (significance
level)a
pests, and diseases were generally significantly
Boro Weeds Low High **
higher in farmer’s seed plot in both seasons Insects Low High **
(Table 3). Diseases Low High *
Mean yield 5.6 5.0 11.18*
Seed standards for rice
T. Aman Insects Low High **
The Seed Certification Standard for Rice that Diseases Low High **
was set by the Bangladesh National Seedboard Mean yield 4.2 3.8 12.80**
is shown in Table 4. The three categories of a
** = highly significant, * = significant.
seeds are breeders’ seed, foundation seed, and
certified seed. Our concern is the certified
seed, which is the type available in the market Table 4. Seed certification standards for rice as set by the
and available for use by farmers. Based on this Bangladesh National Seed Board.a
standard, certified seed must be at least 94% Component Breeder Foundation Certified
pure; must have a maximum of two seeds of seed seed seed

other varieties kg–1 seedlot, 10 weed seeds kg–1, Pure seed (minimum %) 99 96 94
Other varieties
and 4 g of inert materials kg–1; and must have a
(maximum no. kg–1) 0 1 2
minimum of 80% germination and a maximum
Obnoxious weed seed
of 12% moisture content. The 94% purity
(maximum no. kg–1) 0 8 10
requirement for certified seed can be considered
Inert matter
adequate. Two seeds of other varieties kg–1
(maximum no. g kg–1) 1 3 4
seedlot may be a little strict—increasing variety
Germination (%) 80 80 80
mixtures from two to about four may not matter
much because one does not need to have 100%
pure seed in order to produce a good crop. The
levels of weed seed, inert matter, germination seed production. The maximum number of
rate, and moisture content appeared to be weed and other crop seed of 0.2, at least 5%
adequate. Drying of seeds up to 14% moisture inert materials, and 80% germination appear to
after harvest is adequate. However, it is be adequate. The 14% moisture level is at the
essential to maintain a moisture level that is high end and should be reduced to 13% or 12%.
not more than 13% and less than 12% when Seeds should be dried to 12% moisture content
seeds are stored. This is highly desirable for and such dryness maintained.
storage because, at this level, the seed would Based on seed certification standards
neither be attacked by common seedborne being used by other countries, we developed
microorganisms nor infested by storage several criteria to assess the physical quality
insects. Excess drying of seeds (below 12% of seeds that we receive at IRRI’s Seed Health
moisture) affects the seed—it is easily broken Unit for evaluation (Table 6). Of the four seed
and it becomes chalky. On the other hand, health categories, we consider Category 2 as
microorganisms and insects can invade the appropriate for the seed quality level attained
seeds with 14% moisture or higher. by our participating farmers. This is therefore,
In the Philippines, there exist five seed the category being promoted by SHIP: seeds
categories in the Seed Certification Standard having 1% discoloration and seedlot containing
(Table 5). The 95% purity for good seed is very few physically deformed seeds.
adequate but 50 seeds of other varieties per
500 g seedlot may be too high for high-quality

59
 Table 5. Philippine seed certification standards for rice.
Factor Breeder Foundation Registered Certified Good
seed seed seed seed seed
Pure seed 99 98 98 98 95
(minimum %)
Other varieties 0 2 5 20 50
(maximum number 500 g–1)
Weed and other crop seed 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.2
(maximum number kg–1)
Inert materials (%) 1 2 2 2 5
Germination (%) 85 85 85 85 80
Moisture (maximum %) 14 14 14 14 14

Table 6. Criteria used to evaluate physical qualification of seeds at the IRRI

Seed Health Unit.
Category Visual test Macroscopic test
Category 1 (very good) a) Clean No fungal spore
b) 0% discoloration
c) Unblemished
d) Bold seeds
e) No physical deformity

Category 2 (good) a) 1% discoloration

b) Very few physically
deformed seeds

Category 3 (poor) a) 10% discoloration

b) Some physical deformity

Category 4 (very poor) a) 10% discoloration

b) Germinated seeds
c) Other plant parts
d) Insect damage
e) Weeds
f) Soil particles
g) Smutted seeds

Changes in farmers’ seed quality in relation to
SHIP
Results from the seed health analysis of farmer-
saved seeds at the start of the seed health
project showed that the seeds were 95% pure;
had 46% and 11% best seeds and discolored
seeds, respectively; and had 37 weed seeds kg–1
seedlot (Table 7). In comparison with farmer-
saved seeds at the end of the project, the high
purity of the seeds was even improved further,
from 95 to 97% and there were more best seeds
(from 46 to 67%) and less discolored seeds (from
11 to only 3%). Weed seed contamination was
also lower.
We believe that yield gain would likely
increase by another 1-2 percentage points
if farmers could improve their best seed
proportion from 67% to 80%. The target will
enable farmers to produce higher quality
seeds, and thus increase yield. With such an
improvement in quality of farmer-saved seeds,
it can be inferred that farmers have acquired an

60
Table 7. Changes in quality of farmer-saved seeds in Bangladesh
as affected by SHIP.
Seed quality variable Before SHIP After SHIP
Pure seeds High (95%) High (97%)
Best seeds Low (46%) High (67%)
Discolored seeds High (11%) Low (3%)
Weed seeds High Low
adequate knowledge of techniques in producing
high-quality seed for use as planting material.
Hence, such level of improvement could be
considered the standard in producing seeds
suitable for planting. It is not logical to set a
standard that is hardly achievable. For example,
setting the moisture content of the seeds below
12% is not practical because it is difficult to dry
the seeds at this level under farm conditions.
Recommendations
There is a need to encourage community
production of quality seeds for planting at the
village level. Individual farmers must have the
knowledge and skills in producing high- quality
seeds. Within a village, farmers may organize
themselves under the supervision of staff
from either DAE (Department of Agricultural
Extension) or NGO, thus establishing the
community spirit in producing quality seed.
An initial effort could begin from the SHIP
sites with farmers who have already produced
quality seeds and who have sold these to other
farmers.
Even if farmers succeed in producing high-
quality seeds, inadequate storage facilities
will result in seed quality deterioration in 6-9
mo. Using improperly stored seed for planting
will bring about poor yield and production of
poor quality seed. Hence, farmers must know
Table 8. Standards for the production
of high-quality seeds based on research
results of SHIP.
Component Value
Best seed (min %) 70
Pure seed (min %) 95
Weed seed (max no. kg–1 seed) 5
Discoloration (max %) 1
Moisture content (%) 12
efficient storage technology to maintain the high
quality of the seed until the end of the storage
period. Through SHIP, several containers have
been tested and these should be recommended
to farmers for immediate use.
We believe that more farmers should be
trained on quality seed production (using set
standards) and on seed storage. SHIP has
made a good start. This job was relinquished
to DAE so that more farmers can be reached.
The standard (Table 8) and the process we
established to produce high-quality seeds have
to be approved by the Bangladesh Department
of Agriculture and could be the basis or
standard for training other farmers.
The government could implement the
approved standard, which is a measure of the
suitability of the seeds in the market for use as
planting material. Using this as the standard,
commercial seed production (either private or
public) could be monitored and procedures to
produce high-quality seeds for planting could
be followed. Should quality seed for planting
be used by farmers in the country, an additional
10%-15% of rice, without other inputs, can be
produced in the next few years.
Reference
NSB—National Seed Board.1993.Report on National Seed
Board activities. Dhaka (Bangladesh): NSB.
61
Upscaling of seed health technologies
A.K.M. Zakaria
One of the means of increasing the effectiveness
and efficiency of technology upscaling is
through the application of improved and
innovative extension methods. The field
experiences of the Seed Health Improvement
Subproject in the last 5 years have pointed
to the need for upscaling programs that are
participatory, demand-driven, socially accepted,
with quality assurance, cost-effective, gender-
balanced, and problem-solving- oriented.
Program planning, field implementation,
and management processes need to be more
systematic, interactive, and holistic.
One of the most important elements in any
upscaling campaign is the target beneficiary.
The analysis of the target audience is an integral
part of designing and planning a campaign
strategy: who are they, where are they located,
why are they chosen as target, and what
messages should be communicated to them. In
such an analysis, certain types of information
or data are needed—for instance, size and
location of target audience, their socioeconomic
profile (including age group, income,
occupation, education), and their sociocultural
profile (including religion, language, beliefs,
norms, values, information sources, interaction
practices). The characteristics, interests, and
information needs of the target audience may
differ so audience segmentation is usually
necessary. For each target group, a specific
campaign strategy may be required. In this
phase, it is important to prioritize the target
beneficiaries; decisions must be made as to
which group(s) should be reached first or given
the most intensive treatment.
Due to limited resources available to
national agricultural extension services
in Bangladesh, cost effectiveness and cost
efficiency are critical components in the
62
planning and implementation of upscaling
programs. Hence, the methodologies that rely
on participatory approaches and strategic
planning applications, which can minimize
inputs or resources and maximize outputs or
results, must be considered. The components of
an effective upscaling strategy is presented in
the diagram (see page 67).
Participatory approaches
The participatory method is responsive to the
intended beneficiaries’ agricultural problems
and information needs because its extension
objectives, strategies, methods, messages,
and communication materials are specifically
developed on the basis of farmers’ knowledge,
attitude, and practice. Such a participatory
approach increases the degree of relevance,
and thus acceptability, of extension messages
as the intended beneficiaries are asked about
their priority concerns and needs during
the planning stage. It does not assume
target beneficiaries (farmers) to be ignorant
or requiring all the information there is to
know. Rather, it tries to understand and assess
farmers’ local indigenous knowledge, values,
and beliefs on farming practices, which may be
good, or have to be improved or, perhaps, have
to be discouraged. In short, the participatory
approach follows the well- known principles of
rural reconstruction: “start with what people
already know,” and “build on what they
already have.”
Strategic planning
Demand-driven
To make the best use of available extension
resources, the needs of the intended target
beneficiaries should be met, rather than
expose them to a spectrum of information
and skills related to a given technology.
 Effective upscaling components
Demand

Social dimensions

1 2 Gender sensitivity

Participatory Strategic Cost effectiveness

approach planning
Local resource

Quality

3 Message

Field
implementation

SHIP upscaling experiences

The focus of extension activities should be nontechnological social, psychological, cultural,

to create a demand (through information
and motivation) and/or satisfy that demand
(through education and training) by equipping
the intended target beneficiaries with relevant
knowledge and skills to enable adoption of the
recommended technologies. Such a method
should apply bottom–up and participatory
planning procedures, which will give high
priority to meeting the interests and needs of
the target beneficiaries. Tailoring the messages
and activities to their specific needs would
increase not only the chances of success but also
resource use efficiency.
Social dimensions
To minimize the heavy “technology bias” of
many extension activities, the upscaling method
should give adequate consideration to human
behavioral aspects—the sociopsychological,
sociocultural, and socioeconomic factors that
may facilitate or impede adoption. Without a
sufficient understanding of their attitudes and
behavior toward a given technology, technology
transfer would be slow and ineffective. Use of
an innovation is often related to or caused by
and economic factors.
Gender sensitivity
In Bangladesh, there is excellent harmony
between men and women in the sharing
of responsibilities in agricultural activities.
Gender-sensitive upscaling activities must
therefore be developed.
Cost effectiveness
One common constraint in extension work
is the shortage of field extension personnel
who can reach a large number of farmers who
are widely spread in geographical areas with
inadequate transportation facilities. Moreover,
the extension workers are usually burdened
with heavy workload, making them ineffective.
The practice of making them in charge of
everything that has to do with farmers at
the village level is neither technically sound
nor operationally efficient. Some extension
functions—e.g., public awareness, information
delivery, motivational campaigns, and
others—can be more effectively and efficiently
performed using other channels. These may

63
be coordinated and supervised by extension
workers.
Local resource
The workload of extension workers could
be reduced by mobilizing appropriate rural
and community-based resources, including
the increasingly accessible and low-cost
mass communication channels (local radio
stations, folk/traditional media, posters, audio-
cassettes, leaflets, comics, etc.) to disseminate
standardized and packaged extension
messages, as well as using local volunteers
(school teachers and children, local/religious
leaders, etc.) to serve as “intermediaries” in
communicating to farmers. Such an approach
does not imply that extension workers can
or will be substituted by these community
resources. Rather, it is a rational approach of
using available resources more effectively and
efficiently for certain tasks, such as the need
to use extension workers for educational or
instructional purposes (which require two-
way interaction), field demonstrations, group
discussion, etc., activities that cannot be done
as effectively through mass communication
channels.
Quality
Most extension services suffer from a lack of
relevant and practical extension and training
materials to support the field activities of their
extension workers. These people rely primarily
on interpersonal communication. Their time
and/or presence during farmers’ meetings may
not be utilized as effectively and efficiently as it
should be.
Providing specifically designed and relevant
extension support materials to extension
workers will not only make their tasks easier,
it will also reduce their heavy load. It will
likewise ensure a certain degree of quality
control in the delivery of technical information
or extension message content. Experience
has shown that motivation and credibility of
extension workers are increased if they are
given relevant and attractive materials that
they could use to improve their communication
strategies.
64
Message design and production of materials
The effectiveness of an upscaling campaign, to a
large extent, depends on the relevance, validity,
and practicality of the message communicated
to the target beneficiaries. Sometimes,
even though the information is useful and
technically sound, this may not be well received
or understood by the target audience if not
presented properly. Campaign messages must
be attractive, easily and clearly understood, and
accurately perceived.
Another factor that may influence the
effectiveness of message delivery is compe-
tition—there may be several messages trying
to reach the same target audience. The
rural people in Bangladesh are recipients of
numerous social, economic, and development
programs. They tend to be overwhelmed by
various types of information. To make matters
worse, these messages often conflict with one
another, creating further confusion.
Given this information overload, which has
become increasingly common among the rural
populations in many developing countries, a
campaign message needs to be strategically
“positioned” in order to “stand out” in the
crowd. Otherwise, a message may go unnoticed
and the expected impact may not be achieved.
Positioning a campaign message effectively
into the target beneficiaries’ minds requires a
well-planned, creative, and innovative approach
of presenting the message. The relevance and
validity of the message must first be ensured. A
focus or theme must be identified in accordance
with a specific campaign issue. In a campaign,
more than one theme may be necessary,
depending on its objectives.
Once a theme has been identified, messages
need to be developed and effectively packaged
using various social and psychological appeals
to make them persuasive.
Field implementation
The most important element in ensuring that an
upscaling campaign is implemented as planned
is appropriate monitoring and supervision of
staff performance and delivery system. Such a
task can be facilitated by a good management
information system, which is able to provide
campaign organizers with rapid feedback on
important campaign activities, thus enabling
them to make changes in campaign strategies as
needed.
Another important task in field implemen-
tation is the proper coordination of various
activities, which sometimes need to be carried
out simultaneously. Coordination linkages must
be carefully developed, especially if several
agencies are involved in executing different
aspects of the campaign. One of the most
frequent problems encountered during field
implementation is the untimely delivery (often
unavailability) of inputs or services required
for adoption to take place. Target beneficiaries
may have been motivated and persuaded by
the campaign, but the support infrastructure
is lacking. Such a problem may lead to a
“frustration of rising expectations,” which may
undermine the credibility of the campaign.
Effective program implementation also
requires the proper execution of activities
within an estimated time period. A delay in
one of the usually interdependent activities of
a campaign may trigger a chain reaction. In
planning for the implementation of campaign
activities, a realistic time should be followed.
SHIP experiences
To formulate an effective extension program,
there is a need for valid messages appropriately
packaged. Only then can the communication
vehicle carry, disseminate, and popularize
the technology among farmers. SHIP, one of
pioneering projects in Bangladesh, has, from
the very beginning, recognized upscaling as
an integral part of the technology development
process.
SHIP has produced major changes in seed
health practices in research villages, many
of these proved to be long lasting. SHIP has
used a participatory strategy, giving emphasis
on women participation. The integration of
improved drying, storage, and seed cleaning
practices into the traditional seed system has
provided a gender-sensitive solution. Enormous
changes in seed health practices were noted in
a very short time and this resulted in greater
awareness of the bigger role of women in
decisionmaking and in village life in general.
In some instances, these women got involved
in the seed business and became increasingly
optimistic about their future. However, SHIP
had to develop improved seed health practices
and identify some technology upscaling
strategies for them to make full use of the
innovation.
Development of communication materials
Activities related to the development of
communication materials were spread over
the entire project life of SHIP, transforming
scientific principles into an upscaling
message using print and electronic media.
This generated a lot of interest among the
stakeholders. These materials were designed,
validated, and finalized through a careful
process involving male and female farmers,
Union Parishad (UP) representatives, GO and
NGO workers, and expert panels including
social scientists, agricultural scientists, and
audio visual and media personnel.
The following seven rules on what kind of
materials to produce were identified through
several consultation meetings. This is to ensure
that messages are more attractive and perceived
to be useful by the target audience.
A number of communication materials such
as seed health posters, seed health calendars,
leaflets, comics, drama and video stories, and
others were produced using the seven–point
instructions.
The SHIP dissemination network
Women in Bangladesh are traditionally involved
in seed management activities in the home.
Male farmers are more often not able to answer
questions pertaining to seed management; they
let the wife or daughter answer these. This was
because women are mostly engaged in seed
management. A study showed that women had
the primary responsibilities of soaking seed,
drying, cleaning, and preserving seed. The
men took care of field operations such as land
preparation, seedbed preparation, pulling of
seedlings, transplanting, weeding, harvesting,
and threshing (Zakaria 2002).
65
 Information

Researcher Theme

Manuscript

Researcher and farmer Consequences

Design 2 Design 1 Design 3

Researcher and farmer Pretesting

Researcher and expert Modification

Researcher and expert Finalization Evaluation

Mass
production Distribution

Transforming scientific principles into a Message

As seed health management is a gender-

specific task, incorporating concerns of both
women and men in the upscaling agenda did
Seven golden rules enhance the relevance of the program.
In search of an effective upscaling vehicle,
1. Ear- and-eye catching (e.g., ‘Good seed, the idea of collaboration was put forward. The
good crop’) Department of Agriculture Extension (DAE),
2. Touches on farmers’ need (e.g., NGOs, and a local government institution,
‘Additional money’) the UP, were prominently engaged to test the
3. Simple, concise, and direct (e.g., ‘Dry efficiency of technology upscaling to farmers
your seed’) within the SHIP research area.
4. In local language and interesting (e.g., While reviewing the thrusts of these
‘Ki J...a...l...a’) three institutions within the SHIP area,
5. Emphasizes skills (e.g., ‘How to do’ some observations were made. The existing
rather than ‘Why do it’) government extension service in the country
6. Visually attractive (seeing is believing) uses three major dissemination approaches to
(e.g., ‘A picture is better than many serve the farmers: individual, group, and field
words.’) school/ demonstration.
7. Creates a feeling of urgency (e.g., ’Do it Looking at the dissemination system
now’) within the SHIP villages, it was found that the
extension agents had a heavy work load and are
biased in favor of the male farmer. This finding
concurs with those of other studies that showed
extension agents (majority of whom are male)

66
 %
100
80
60
40
20
0
Soaking Threshing
Sharing responsibility of rice seed management by men and women in Bangladesh
visiting more male farmers than female farmers
(Saito 1990).
Similarly, the group approach has not been
effective in targeting women farmers because
practically very few women have actively
participated in the predominantly male farmer
group.
With the highly intensive farmer field school,
some success has been achieved, but scaling up
and sustainability problems have cropped up.
Face-to-face interaction through season-long
training is very costly and the number of people
reached is limited.
In rural communities like those in
Bangladesh, where women are assigned
important roles inside the yard but contact with
unknown men is discouraged, male extension
workers find it hard to provide services to
women.
Extension is a kind of social service.
The NGOs are good potential partners for
dissemination of agricultural technology
among village women and men. But, in most
cases, the NGO activities are closely associated
with micro-credit and off-farm activities.
These constraints and challenges presented
an excellent opportunity to look for a gender-
balanced and sustainable scaling up mechanism.
By looking at some point parameters, the
SHIP farmer graduates evaluated the upscaling
potential of a technology using different
vehicles. The findings were mainly in favor
of the combined involvement of a reputable
technical institution such as DAE and a local
institution such as UP (Fig. 4).
Women
Men
Drying Cleaning Preservation Field
operations
The following unique features of UP influenced SHIP to develop a
technology dissemination network using a local government plat-
form. This concurs with the government’s rural development policy
of involving the local government units in development work.
Characteristic of UP Advantage
Strong local government platform Existing platform all over rural
Bangladesh
The only grassroots level Village
�������������������������
network organized
democratic institution represented
in every village
Members (12) are elected every 5 yr Ensures people’s participation
Fosters strong positive commitment
Women representation (25%) Opportunities
���������������������������������
for women-sensitive
in UP is strong solutions
UP members live in their ������������������������
Speaks the same language
own villages Works in the same field with farmers
Easy access for both men and
women
No time and mobility barrier
UP members are moderately Socioecology
�����������������������������������
of the village better
educated understood
Infrastructure facility available Infrastructure
�����������������������
existing
for farmer’s training, meetings, etc.
Overall Government policy support
The unique partnership of DAE and the
local government institution (UP) made access to
seed health improvement knowledge affordable.
SHIP formulated a strategic alliance between
DAE and a UP called Amrool Union Parishad
in Bogra. With UP as the driving force in SHIP
technology upscaling, DAE, in collaboration
with RDA, instituted significant changes among
male and female farmer members of the Amrool
Union. Majority of the farmers participated in
67
 %

Matrix

Extension network

Manpower

Gender sensitivity

Local resources

Time factor

Communication factor

Mobility factor

Social dimension
DAE alone DAE + LG NGO alone NGO + LG DAE + NGO LG alone
Institution

the program and applied the SHIP technology Reference:

indicating the effectiveness of the joint venture
between DAE and the local government
institution. The way of disseminating SHIP
technology earned the label Amrool Model,
which aimed to educate thousands of male and
female farmers within a short span of time.
Saito AK, 1990. Agriculture extension for women farmers
in Africa. World Bank Discussion Paper no. 156.
Washington, D.C. USA.
Zakaria, AKM, 2002. Knowledge attitude, and practice
of rice seed management technologies in irrigated
double cropped rice eco-system in Bangladesh. Bogra,
Bangladesh: Rural Development Academy.

68
Rice seed management in Bangladesh: a study of farmers’
knowledge and practice
M. Hossain, C. Diaz, M.L. Bose, and T.W. Mew
Healthy seed is the foundation of a healthy
plant, a necessary condition for good yield.
Seed health is associated with conditions and
contaminants of rice seed for planting. Seed
conditions include discolored, unfilled, and
deformed seeds, whereas contaminants are
insect pest, weed seeds, mixture with seeds
of different varieties, plant debris, and soil
particles. The discolored seeds could be due to
insect injury and pathogen infection inasmuch
as deformed and unfilled seeds may be related
to both pathogens and other physiological
conditions of seed maturity and seed infection.
All these seed conditions and contaminants
contribute to poor seed health. Pest pressure
and yield losses could be reduced by ensuring
that seeds are healthy. A lot of attention is
given to genetic improvement of plants to
increase rice yields, but the genetic potential of
improved cultivars cannot be attained if seeds
are not healthy.
Good seed health could be maintained
through better management in selecting the
seeds from the harvest, drying for optimum
moisture control for storage, and maintaining
scientific storing conditions to protect seeds
from seedborne pathogens. For crop and pest
management, attention has always been paid
to cultural practices or curative measures with
harmful agrochemicals aimed at protecting
crop health. There has been no effort, until
fairly recently, to examine whether pest
pressure could be reduced and the yield
increased through preventive measures by
enhancing the capacity of the farmers to better
manage the most important resources at their
disposal, the seed. Improving farmers’ seed
health management for plant growth, crop
production, and grain quality is one option
to increase rice productivity without much
additional cost.
Seed management is a knowledge-intensive
technology with different components that
many farmers may not be aware of in situations
of less developed extension infrastructure.
Improved seed management practices assume
particular importance in situations where
seeds used for planting are mostly saved from
the farmers’ own harvests or exchanged with
neighbors. The issue is of great importance
for Bangladesh because of low education levels
of farmers and extensive use of farmer-saved
seeds.
The purpose of this study was to understand
farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices
regarding seed management in Bangladesh; to
assess the scope of increasing yield through
better seed management; and to identify
specific areas of intervention for seed quality
research and farmers’ capacity enhancement for
improved management.
Data and methodology
Survey methodology
Data for this study were generated through a
sample farm household survey in purposively
selected villages. Seven districts were selected
to represent the diverse agroecological zones
in Bangladesh: Barisal (coastal nonsaline),
Chuadanga (drought-prone medium land),
Rangpur (favorable flood plains), Rajshasi
(barind-tract, drought-prone highland), Bogra
(irrigated double-cropped rice system), Habiganj
(flood-prone, drought-prone highland), and
Gazipur (favorable upland). The location of the
study areas can be seen in Figure 1. Two areas
were selected for each of the districts, one from
a predominantly irrigated ecosystem and the
other from a predominantly rainfed ecosystem.
For each of the areas, two localities were
selected to represent the variability in access to
marketing infrastructure; one locality nearer
69
the district or thana headquarters and the other
a remote locality. Thus, four localities were
selected from each district.
From each locality, 20 households were
selected to participate in the study. The
research partners were advised to draw
samples in such a way that they represent
different farm size and land tenure groups in
proportion to their composition, as found in
agricultural censuses in Bangladesh. The 1983-
84 agricultural census reported that 60% of the
farm households were owner operators and
40% were mixed tenants (having some land
owned by the household). The 1996 agricultural
census found the same proportion of owner
and tenant farmers. In 1983-84, small farms
with holdings of less than 1 ha constituted 70%,
medium farms with 1-2 ha constituted 18%, and
the remaining 12% had holdings of more than 2
ha. The 1996 census found further increases in
the proportion of small farmers and a reduction
of large farmers. The enumerators were asked
to select the samples in the proportion of 3:2
between owner and tenant categories and 6:2:2
among small, medium, and large farm size.
The total sample consisted of 560 households
belonging to 23 thanas and seven districts.
The data were generated by interviewing
farmers with a structured questionnaire, which
was pretested in Gazipur. The questionnaire
contained information on socioeconomic
characteristics of households, including gender
roles in rice farming, land utilization by season,
rice varieties and yield, exposure to agricultural
extension, sources of seeds, and farmers’
knowledge and practices of seed management.
Focus-group interviews were also conducted
to support the information gathered from
individual interviews. The informal discussions
with the farmers gave the opportunity to
explore other topics and to generate ideas and
hypotheses to be tested through data analysis.
A sample of 1 kg seeds kept by the farmer
for planting during the next season (2000 boro)
was collected from each of the household
selected for the survey to assess the quality
of farmer-saved seeds in terms of seed health.
These were examined on the basis of physical
quality, presence of seedborne pathogens, and
rate of germination. In the laboratory testing,
physical quality, pure seed, mixture, discolored
seed, insects, and weed seed were identified.
A blotter test of 400 seeds was used to identify
seedborne pathogens. The findings of this
investigation will be reported in another paper.
Table 1 reports the estimates for a few key
characteristics of the sample for which values
for the country as a whole are available from
official statistics. The comparison would help
assess whether the sample is representative of
the country as a whole. The average household
size was estimated at 6.4, much higher than
the 5.6 estimated for Bangladesh as a whole.
The average farm size for the sample was
1.25 ha, substantially larger than the 0.68 for
Bangladesh. The area under tenancy was 22%
of the holdings, almost similar to that at the
national level. The proportion of area under

Table 1. Representatives of the sample.

Indicator Unit Estimates from ������������

Bangladesh
the surveya official
estimatesb
Mean Standard

Household size Persons 6.4 0.13 5.6

Farm size Ha 1.25 0.05 0.68
Incidence of tenancy Percentage of holdings 22.3 1.4 24.5
Irrigation coverage Percentage of holdings 62.6 1.1 52.1
Adoption of modern rice Percentage of rice area 76.2 1.1 61.2
Rice yield
Aman MV t ha–1 3.63 0.05 3.32
Aman TV t ha–1 2.17 0.06 2.00
Aman MV t ha–1 4.77 0.06 4.65

Sources: aSample survey for the present study. bBangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Monthly Bulletin, February 2000, and
Report of the Census of Agriculture, 1996.

70
 Fig. 1. Rice seed health improvement project sites covering major agricultural zones in Bangladesh.

71
irrigation and the adoption of modern rice
varieties for the sample were also found higher
than those for the country as reported in
official statistics. The proportion of area under
aman and aus rice for the sample was lower,
compared with the country as a whole, and
the area under boro was much higher (Table
2). Thus, the sample appears to be biased in
favor of medium and large farmer adopters of
modern technology and boro rice growers. The
sampling bias resulted from the stipulation to
the enumerators that they collect farmer-saved
seeds for the next boro season. Since they were
conscious of selecting farmers who grow boro
rice, the selection bias in favor of progressive
farmers with larger farm size and better
access to irrigation was kept in. The results
from the survey may thus underestimate the
importance of the seed management problem
in Bangladesh. The yields of major rice crops
obtained form the survey were, however,
similar to estimates for Bangladesh (Table 1).
Farmers’ perception of problems in rice
farming
Since the study covered a large number of
farmers representing diverse agroecological
zones, we took the opportunity to get feedback
from farmers on the problems they face in rice
farming. We asked each respondent to report
major problems she/he faces in rice farming.
The responses obtained are reported in Table
3. The socioeconomic problems were reported
as relatively less important than the technical
problems. The major socioeconomic problems
were reported as “high cost of fertilizer” (71%),
“lack of capital” (54%), and “low price of rice”
(50%). Lack of irrigation and adulteration of
inputs were mentioned as a problem by 41%
and 22% of the farmers, respectively.
Table 2. Adoption of modern varieties, by season.
Season Estimates from the survey 1996 agricultural census
Percent of Coverage of ��������������������������
Percent of Coverage of
��������������������������
area����������������������
modern area��������
������������
modern
������
varieties��������������
varieties
Aman 42.6 66 50.6 43
Aus 5.7 48 19.9 24
Boro 51.9 87 29.5 82
Total 100.0 76 100.0 50.7
72
A considerable geographical variation
was noted in the responses on socioeconomic
problems. The high fertilizer cost was reported
by over two-thirds of the farmers in five out of
seven sites. It was mentioned as a problem by a
minority of farmers only in Bogra and Rajshasi.
Low output of rice was mentioned as a problem
by more than 90% of the farmers in Barisal,
Rangpur, and Gazipur sites, but in Rajshasi,
Habiganj, and Bogra, this complaint was made
by only 20% of the farmers. Lack of credit
was reported by more than two-thirds of the
farmers in Habiganj, Barisal, and Rangpur but
by less than 30% of the farmers in Chuadanga,
Rajshasi, and Gazipur sites.
Insects, weeds, diseases, and rats were
reported the most important biotic stresses
faced by the farmers (Table 3). Insects were
mentioned as a major problem in all sites.
Weeds were reported an important problem
in almost all sites, except in Chuadanga and
Table 3. Problems encountered in rice farming.
Problem Farmers reporting %
Socioeconomic
Low output price 50
High fertilizer cost 71
Lack of irrigation 41
Adulteration of inputs 22
Lack of capital 54
Lack of quality seed 24
Technical
Insects 91
Diseases 60
Weeds 68
Rats 59
Drought 46
Floods 20
Lodging 18
Table 4. Farmers’ knowledge of pests affecting
rice seeds and reducing yields.
Pest Percent of cases
Stem borers 69
Rice bugs 64
Brown spot/leaf blight 57
Rice hispa 46
Sheath rot 35
Rice blast 27
Tungro virus 22
Sheath blight 18
Grasshopper 9
Cannot identify insects 47
Cannot identify diseases 5
Rangpur. Diseases were reported more in
Chuadanga, Gazipur, and Bogra but not much
in Rajshasi and Habiganj. Rats were reported
as a serious problem in Barisal, Rangpur,
and Gazipur. With regard to abiotic stresses,
Chuadanga and Rajshasi reported drought
as most important; it was floods in Habiganj,
Rangpur, and Barisal; and lodging in Barisal.
About 47% of the farmers reported that they
cannot identify specific insects or diseases,
signifying a need for training in this area.
The others reported that the most frequently
observed pests causing the highest yield
loss are the stem borers (majra poka). Other
important insects were rice bugs and rice hispa.
For diseases, farmers observed brown spot (may
be confused with leaf blight), sheath rot, blast,
tungro virus and sheath blight, causing some
losses in that order of importance (Table 4).
What are the sources of information about
modern farming methods? Farmers’ responses
to this question are reported in Table 5. Fellow
farmers were the main source of farming
information by about 76% of the farmers. Thus,
the extension approach through training of
model farmers appears to be a cost-effective
strategy under these circumstances. Nearly
51% of the farmers reported extension workers
as a good source of agricultural information.
Fertilizer dealers, NGOs, and research stations
were mentioned as a source of information by a
minority of the respondents.
About 82% of the sample farmers reported
that they used seeds saved from their own
harvests (Table 6). Another 10% reported that
they purchased or exchanged seeds with their
neighbors. Seed savings from the harvest was
thus the predominant source of rice seed in
Bangladesh. Only 5% of the farmers reported
getting seeds from government institutions
(BADC or research stations). Farmers who
obtained seeds from the NGOs were rare.
Seeds obtained from private traders were
reported by only 3% of the sample farmers.
Own stock was relatively a more important
source for the traditional varieties, while
government institutions were more important
for the modern varieties. Private traders were
operating in the rice market more for traditional
varieties than for modern varieties. BADC
was reportedly active in seed marketing in
the Chuadanga site, presumably due to the
presence of a BADC seed farm in a nearby area.
NGOs were mentioned as a source of seed in
the Rangpur site and the private traders in
the Barisal site. Since farmers’ or neighbors’
stock were the predominant source of seeds,
knowledge and practices for selection of good
seeds and their preservation for maintaining
quality are important crop management issues
in Bangladesh.
About 92% of the farmers reported that seed
for boro planting were derived from the boro
harvest the previous year. For aus planting, a
substantial portion was taken from the previous
boro harvest. For the aman plantings, however,
the seed used were almost entirely from the
previous aman harvest. The findings suggest
some interchange of seeds between boro and
aus seasons. This implies that boro seeds were
kept for a shorter period than the aman seeds.
Since the seeds were kept for a long period for
both aman and boro crops (which accounts for
more than 80% of the rice area), proper storage
Table 5. Sources of information on improved
farming methods.a
Source of information Percent of cases
Fellow farmers 76
Extension workers 51
Radio 35
Fertilizer dealers 27
NGOs 14
Research stations 9
Total adds up to more than 100 because of multiple
a
responses.
Table 6. Sources of rice seeds grown by farmers.
Source of seed Modern Traditional All
varieties���������������������
������������������������������
varieties ���������
varieties
Own stock 79.8 86.7 81.6
Exchanged with
neighbors 3.6 3.2 3.5
Purchased from
neighbors 7.0 5.2 6.5
Private seeds traders 2.6 4.8 3.2
Government
institutions 6.6 0.0 5.0
NGOs 0.3 0.0 0.3
73
of seeds should be a major element in seed
management.
Nearly 74% of the farmers reported that they
kept the seed from their own harvest because
the quality of their own seed is better than the
seed available from the market, either from
BADC or from private seed traders (Table 7).
Other important reasons mentioned are “good
seed not available,” “new and better varieties
not available,” and “price of seed too high.” It
is important to note that the lack of capital to
buy seed was mentioned to be an insignificant
reason for not buying seed from the market.
Seeds account for only about 2% of the gross
value of rice production, hence, the cost of
seed is not an issue of concern. The findings
indicate that development of varieties that
farmers perceive as better than the ones they
currently use, making seeds of new varieties
available to farmers, and ensuring the trust of
farmers regarding quality of rice supplied from
the market are major seed-related issues in
Bangladesh.
Perceptions of seed quality
Farmers were aware that the seeds they keep
from their harvest are not of perfect quality.
They know about the presence of different
contaminants in their seed stock (Table 8). The
problems reported by farmers (in the order
of importance) were presence of soil particles
(65%), mixtures with weed seeds (57%),
mixtures with seed damage by insects (45%),
mixture with seeds of other varieties (43%), and
mixture with discolored seeds (42%). (Figures
within parentheses are the percentages of cases
reporting this as problem.) The problem of
mixtures with deformed seeds was mentioned
by only about one-fifth of the farmers. Farmers’
assessment of own seeds differed across
locations. Farmers in Chuadanga and Rangpur
assessed seeds as having better quality because
contamination was less frequently observed.
In Barisal, Habiganj, and Gazipur, farmers
reported that their own seeds were mixed with
weed seeds, damaged by insects, and mixed
with off-types and other contaminants.
The findings on farmers’ assessment of
their own seeds suggest two points. The first
74
is the condition of farmer-saved seeds and the
second is the extent of farmers’ knowledge in
assessing seed quality. Farmers might consider
own seeds to be clean with a high level of
purity due to their inability to correctly identify
the mixtures and associate the seriousness
of seed conditions. In this case, they may
reject scientific knowledge for improving
seed quality. On the other hand, farmers may
be knowledgeable in assessing the quality
of seeds, and they evaluate their seeds to be
impure because of factors beyond their control.
It appears from the responses of the farmers
that they clearly perceive the quality of their
own seeds as a problem. They, therefore, should
be receptive to outside interventions meant to
improve quality.
A large proportion of farmers perceived
good land preparation, proper soil moisture,
and adequate nutrient as factors that are as
equally important as good-quality seed in
Table 7. Farmers’ reasons for keeping seeds
from their harvest.
Reason Percent of cases
Good seed not available 38
New varieties not available 33
Price of seed too high 24
Cannot afford to buy seed 1
Better quality of own seed 74
Note: Total exceeds 100 because of multiple responses.
Table 8. Farmers’ assessment of their own
seed characteristics.
Characteristic Percent of cases
Deformed seeds 23
Discolored seeds 42
Mixed with soil particles 65
Mixed with off types 43
Mixed with weed seeds 57
Damaged by insects 45
Table 9. Farmers’ knowledge of factors
affecting seed vigor.
Factor Percent of cases
Good land preparation 91
Good seed quality 89
Adequate fertilizer 89
Adequate moisture 85
Use of insecticides 68
Proper harvesting, threshing, and drying 50
achieving seedling vigor (Table 9). Use of
chemicals for treating seeds before planting,
proper harvesting, threshing, and drying of
seeds were perceived by a smaller proportion of
farmers as key factors affecting seedling vigor.
Table 10 reports farmers’ perception of
the effects of seed conditions on yield. They
perceived a substantial yield reduction caused
by seeds with insect damage, by seeds mixed
with off-types, and by deformed seeds. The
seed conditions that caused some or substantial
yield losses were reported by farmers as
seeds with insect damage (70%), seed mixed
with weeds (60%), deformed seeds (57%), and
seeds mixed with off-types (49%) (figures
within parentheses are percentages of farmers
reporting). Those who thought discolored
or smutted seeds caused some or substantial
yield losses were a minority among the sample
farmers.
Seed management: knowledge and practice
Farmers described a good seed as having a
white spot on its tip and is bright looking. They
claimed that a bad seed looks dull. Discolored
and smutted seed were assessed as having
poor quality and infected with disease. These
kinds of seed affect seed germination. Farmers
explained that if seeds were not perceived as
good, they simply discard them. They usually
looked for replacement form neighbors, which
they either paid for or replaced with other
seeds. They also did not consider seeds with
insect damage as worthy of planting. Some
farmers reported using plant materials such as
neem leaves to prevent insect damage during
storage. Many farmers were also aware of the
effects of moisture on seeds. They said that if
seeds had high moisture content, pest damage
Table 10. Farmers’ perception (percent of cases) of yield effects of seed
conditions.
Seed condition Some yield Substantial yield Total
reduction reduction
Discolored seeds 20.7 6.3 27.0
Smutted seeds 29.3 16.3 45.6
Deformed seeds 35.5 21.9 57.4
Mixed with off-types 27.6 21.7 49.3
Mixed with weed seeds 44.0 15.7 59.7
Seeds with insect damage 37.7 31.9 69.6
would also be higher. In general, Bangladeshi
farmers were concerned about seed quality and
were quite knowledgeable about the conditions
that affect seed health.
Farmers perceived that seed vigor is greatly
affected by improper drying of seed. If seeds
were not properly dried, they would not
germinate. Farmers reported that proper drying
protected seeds from insect damage. They
tested the moisture content of seeds by biting
to determine if the crop is ready for harvesting.
Farmers also perceived other factors affecting
seedling vigor—e.g., good land preparation,
sufficient use of insecticide and fertilizer, good-
quality seeds, and sufficient water.
Farmers considered weeds to be a serious
problem in boro rice than in aman rice. They
perceived that weeds come from the application
of fertilizer. Weeds, they said, usually appeared
if there was no gap between croppings. They
seldom used herbicides for controlling weeds.
Many farmers harvested a selected portion
of the field for seeds. Usually, they chose the
middle portion of the field, since it is where
good seeds were found. It was the perception
that water usually stayed more in the middle
part of the field, although some indicated that
the surrounding portion got more care and
attention. However, some farmers selected seeds
after harvesting the whole lot, but they took
care in winnowing and drying before putting
them for storage.
Harvests kept for seeds were sun-dried for
3-5 d. After sun drying, they cleaned the seeds
by winnowing, using a winnower called kula.
They usually stored seeds in drums or tin and
jute bags with plastic linings, placed on top
of a bench or wood. During mid-storage, they
sun-dried seeds for 1-2 d. Sun-drying of seeds
was usually done on the yard of the homestead.
Farmers used horpa, a bamboo scraper, in
spreading the seeds while drying. After drying,
the seeds were collected using a broom locally
known as juru.
Seeds planted for the boro season were
usually those kept from the previous boro
harvest and were generally stored for about 7
mo and so was the case with aman seeds—i.e,
they were from the previous aman harvest. A
75
large proportion of the seed for the aus season
was, however, form the boro harvest. Farmers
were more concerned about the quality of the
boro seeds because boro was harvested during
the monsoon season and hence, the grain ha
high moisture content.
To germinate the seeds, these were placed
in a jute bag (without polyethylene) for 1-2 d.
The bag of seeds was soaked in water for 24
h and was then exposed to sunlight for 1-2 h.
The seeds were then placed in between layers
of straw for 24 h. After 6-9 h, the seeds were
sprayed with water. After 24 h, seeds were
ready for sowing in the field. For boro, the
seedling age is 30-35 d, but if it is too cold,
germination becomes slow. The seedling age for
aus is 20-25 d and for aman rice, 60-75 d. The
aman seedling is easily affected by rain due to
submergence problems.
During the survey, respondents were
asked to report whether they are aware of the
different components of seed management and
whether they practice them. The responses
obtained from the survey are reported in Table
11. It can be seen that winnowing for cleaning
seeds (to remove soil particles, weed seeds,
and unfilled seeds) was done by almost every
farmer; rouging to select plants and special care
in drying were done by 90% of the farmers;
and harvesting of a selected portion of the field
and flotation to remove unfilled seeds were
practiced by more than 80% of the farmers.
The elements that were not practiced by a
substantial portion of the farmers were special
care in threshing (27%), special care in storing
seeds (41%), and chemical treatment for pest
control.
Special care in seed storage was considered
not so important by some farmers (52%),
while others (62%) reasoned out that special
care in threshing was costly due to the labor
requirement. For chemical treatment, cost was
mentioned as a major reason for not practicing
it. A large proportion of farmers also thought
that chemical control is not effective (Table 12).
If farmers think that a particular practice is
not worth doing in terms of getting benefits,
then, they will not go for it. Assessing the cost
and benefit of seed management practices is
76
an important issue that must be dealt with to
understand farmers’ methods to improve seed
quality.
To identify factors that influence the practice
of good seed management, an index seed
management practice was constructed, which
was then related to a number of socioeconomic
and technical factors related to the farm,
using a regression model. The index was
measured in terms of the number of elements
of seed management technology that the
farmer practices. The results of the regression
equation are reported in Table 13. The results
showed that better seed management practice
was positively associated with farm size
and access to infrastructure (opportunity for
more productive nonfarm employment). It
indicated that the opportunity cost of labor is
a key variable influencing good management
practice. Those who have high opportunity
cost of labor were less inclined to use labor-
intensive methods. Farmers who have in their
land portfolio a larger proportion of high or low
land (having a larger proportion of land under
traditional varieties) had lower values of the
index, as shown by the negative and statistically
Table 11. Farmers’ knowledge and practice of different seed
management practices.
Management factor Have knowledge Engage in
practice
Harvesting selected portions of the field 89 86
Ranging for selected plants 91 89
Special care in threshing 80 73
Winnowing for cleaning seeds 100 99
Special care in drying 91 90
Special care in storage 68 59
Chemical treatment for pest control 47 30
Flotation to remove unfilled seeds 83 80
Table 12. Reasons for not practicing the
method.
Reason Percent reporting
Care in storing seed
Not so important 52
Do not know how to care 46
Chemical treatment of seeds
Not effective 56
Chemicals not available 9
Costly 61
Special care in threshing
Costly 61
Time consuming 39
significant coefficient values of these variables.
This result suggests that, as yield gains from
quality seed increases with adoption of modern
varieties, farmers would go for better seed
management. The importance of the role of
extension in inducing farmers to use improved
management practices is demonstrated by
the positive and significant coefficients of the
variables representing farmers’ contact with
government extension workers, NGOs, and
communication media (radio).
How much yield would increase if the
farmers were to practice all nine elements of
seed management technology? This question
was explored by fitting a yield function, relating
the rice yield of the farmer to the factors
that affect yield, including the index of seed
management. The results are shown in Table
14. Major determinants of yield were found to
be adoption of modern varieties, irrigation, soil
type, and elevation of land. The estimated value
of the regression coefficients indicated that
adoption of modern variety increased yield by
1.07 t ha–1 and that irrigation increased yield by
1.06 t ha–1. The index of seed management was
positively associated with yield. The value of
the regression coefficient suggests that one unit
of seed management index contributes to an
increase in yield by 118 kg ha–1.
It was noted that the average value of the
index of seed management was 6.9 out of nine
elements. Thus, if the farmer practices all nine
elements, the yield will increase by 248 kg (118
× 2.9) ha–1, which amounts to 6.2% of the current
Table 13. Factors affecting the practice of good seed manage-
ment.
Factor Regression T value Significance to the
������������������������
coefficient�������������
coefficient
Farm size -0.15 -3.03 0.003
Number of workers 0.12 4.49 0.000
Unfavorable ecosystem -1.42
Access to infrastructure -0.147 -4.07 0.001
Contact with NGO 0.383 2.05 0.041
Contact with extension 0.831 6.32 0.000
Listen to radio 0.439 3.20 0.002
Percent of high land -0.008 -3.03 0.003
Percent of lowland -0.014 -6.18 0.000
Constant 7.0 37.1 0.000
R2 0.45
Table 14. Impact of seed management practice on rice yield: a
regression estimate.
Determinant Regression Estimated �������������
Significance
coefficient �������������
t value level
Irrigation coverage 1060 6.19 0.000
Modern variety coverage 1072 6.22 0.000
Loamy soil 265 2.48 0.014
Low land -912 -0.55 0.582
Farm size -51 -0.96 0.336
Tenancy ratio 68 0.40 0.693
Education of the farmer 20 1.82 0.069
Index of seed management 118 4.54 0.000
Constant 1337 5.08 0.000
R2=0.25, N=561, F=16.7
yield. Thus, with ideal seed management,
the yield might increase by 6.2%, which is
equivalent to about 2.5 million t of rice at the
national level.
77
Seeds for survival: an impact assessment of the Seed Health
Improvement Project (SHIP) in Bangladesh
A. Bayes, M. Lal Bose, and A. Chowdhury

Sound seed, bountiful yield
Seed production is the product of careful
planning and selection; it is seen as a resource
of the farming community and a symbol of
its integrity and self-sufficiency (Tripp 2001).
The impact of healthy seed on yield is amply
documented in the literature (Hossain et al
2000, Elazegui and Mew 2000, Diaz et al 2000).
The adage ‘as you sow, so you reap’ connotes
a positive correlation between good seed and
good yield.
Losses due to seedborne diseases in
Bangladesh have rarely been quantified.
Obviously, the lapse has been due to limited
resources and lack of technology. However,
the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI)
estimates that national yield loss attributed
to all diseases stands at 10-15%, two-thirds of
which are fungal. This amounts to a yield loss
of 6-10% just from fungal diseases. Of these
losses, 20% are estimated to be caused by
seedborne inoculum. This implies that 1.2-2%
of the total rice crop is lost due to factors that
would be addressed by the project. This is likely
a conservative estimate―experimental use of
clean seed in farmers’ fields in the Philippines
has given yield improvements of 5-20% (Diaz et
al, 1998).
BRRI (1999) further notes, on the basis of
conservative estimates again, that losses on
account of diseases in rice crops translate into
216,000–360,000 t forgone annually with total
rice production at 18 million t per annum. At
the current farmgate price, this is equal to Tk
1.3-2.2 billion annually, which indicates that the
economic problem is on a scale worth tackling.
Age-old ideas and practices
Farmers have traditionally sown more
than would have been required (Alam and
Quayum 1999). For crop and pest management,
historically, farmers favored curative measures
with harmful agrochemicals aimed at protecting
crop health. Unlike in many other countries,
there have been no efforts, until recently,
to examine whether pest pressure could be
diminished through preventive measures by
enhancing the capacity of farmers to manage the
most important resource at their disposal, the
seed (Hossain et al 2000). By and large, neither
has seed been a subject of intense interest
to them nor have agricultural research and
extension services so far invoked any interest in
this regard (see Box 1).
CASE STUDY: Faruk fetches a fortune
Faruk Hossain, 40 and uneducated, hails from the village of
Rakudia in Babugonj, Barisal. The village is 3 km from the
Dhaka-Barisal highway. He owns three jaista of land (60
decimals) and rents another two jaista (40 decimals) to make
a living for a family of seven. He has three children, but his
widowed sister and her son were also depending on him for
their future. For many years, in addition to cultivating land,
Faruk has worked as a laborer to keep the family “afloat.”
Now he hires labor to cultivate his land. Faruk says, “Agey
kamla khate baidhho chilam ,ekhon baidhho noi (I was
forced to work as labor, now it is my wish). He has given up
working on other people’s land; instead, he is devoting more
attention to growing nonrice crops. Last year, he sold green
chili worth Tk 1300, papaya worth Tk 500, and vegetables
worth Tk 3000.
During the last season, he harvested 14 maunds of
BR11 from 20 decimals and 16 maunds of BRRI Dhan 29
from 20 decimals. This happened after his training with
SHIP. According to Faruk, in the past, he used to get only
half this harvest from BR11. He also cultivated Kajla on
20 decimals to bring home 13 maunds, compared with 10

seeds—and mostly sick seeds—per unit of land maunds before SHIP. The training he got changed his fate.

78
 Faruk says, “Ekhon bujhi, shikhhar morjad,. Seletari
beshi poramu.” (Now I understand the value of education. I
hope to give my son higher education.)
Faruk and family have had foodless days in the past. On
average, one meal comprised ruti; one meal, rice; and the
other, none. Nowadays, they have two chickens a week, and
three meals with worm rice (gorom bhat). Faruk never used
soap in his whole life. Now he uses two lifebuoy soaps per
month. He plans to eat BRRI Dhan29 (a finer quality rice)
this year instead of age-old Kajla (a coarse rice).
Faruk Hossain plans to buy a pump to reduce his
dependency on the whims of the “haves” He also wants to
reduce the amount of land he rents. Sharecropping is no good
to him. He would put all his energy in his own plots. They
are small but productive because of the skills he got from the
training.
Faruk’s family of seven needs 960 kg of rice per year, but
last year, he got 1,300 kg and sold the surplus. For the first
time in his life, Faruk Hossain went to the market with 4
maunds of surplus rice and 2 maunds of seeds. Sales fetched
him a good fortune: from rice (Tk 500) and from the seeds
(Tk1200).
Modern practices
Against this backdrop, the Seed Health
Improvement Project (SHIP) came to contest the
conventional wisdom of Bangladeshi farmers. It
attempted to uphold modern thoughts around
seed management. Under the umbrella of
SHIP, seed is seen as a serious subject in terms
of study, analysis, and application. Empirical
evidence shows that roughly one-tenth of the
output is lost due to unhygienic and careless
conservation of farm seeds. Since more than
four-fifths of the rice seeds originate in farm
households (Hossain et al 2000), farmers need to
be trained on rearing, preserving, and applying
seeds in the field (see Box 2).
A further foundation of SHIP efforts is to
highlight the importance of good agricultural
practices in terms of, say, optimal doses of
fertilizer, leveling of land, line sowing, etc.
While farmers devoted most of their training in
CASE STUDY : When money molds the mind
Abdul Kader, 45, of Sreepur, Gazipur, is a pure tenant. He
has neither education nor land to live on. But seven people
depend on him for food security through sharecropping.
Everyday, he needs to manage 3-3.5 kg of rice. in the
previous years, he sharecropped 6 bigha (210 decimals) in
the aman and 4 bigha (140 decimals) in the boro season.
Such a large piece of land—be it from others—should give
him food security, even after surrendering half of the output.
But, as fate would have it, food wants never waned until
he and wife Fatima were trained. To survive, both of them
worked as a muni and maid in other people’s house just
for a kilogram of rice a day. They were regarded outcasts of
society, not getting any respect or reward.
But the pendulum swung. After religiously receiving
training from SHIP they, went into action. Agile and active
Fatema remembers telling her husband to stop working for a
while. “Now, we eat BRRI Dhan 28, not coarse rice. Now,
I sell seed and rice and I can buy saree. I have been selling
seeds for the last 2 years. Farmers come to buy seeds and
learn lessons from SHIP. I go to the fields to see for myself
the fruits of my labor. Rich men’s wives did not have to go
to the fields. But we must. If I can help my husband in the
field, it saves us Tk 100 a day the (prevailing wage rate). For
the last few years, we have an environment of “Eid” around
our household”. Salma Khatun, also a pure tenant’s wife,
joins her, “In the past, landowners declined to rent out land
to us. Now they offer, we decline.” Both of them said, “the
same labor that fetches 1 kg of rice from working in others’
house would bring 1 maund of rice if spent in our own land.
Fatema continued, “Now we buy books for our daughter
at Tk 500. I never dreamed of that. We remained illiterate
because of poverty.”
“Now we can buy if we wish. Before, there was just
wish, but no way to get it.”
The Kader family harvested 15 maunds of BR11 from 35
decimals and 20 maunds of BRRI Dhan 28. From the same
parcel of land, just a few years back, they bagged home, 12
and 17 maunds, respectively. On average, they were able
to sell seeds worth Tk 1400 per season, easing the credit
constraint that they used to face. Fatema said, “For the last
few years, we did not borrow money from others. Before that
we went to a mohajan, received Tk 1000, and returned it
with an interest of Tk 100 per month”.
Fatema and Salma have these last words, “Everything
is good when the mind is good. Now, our minds are good;
hence, everything is good.”
Mr. X, a large landowner who once hired them as
maids said: “ Nowadays, they stopped working in my house.
Their condition is now better.” Fatema and Salma adds, “If
we wish, we will do others’ work,” perhaps pointing to the
freedom of choice that they gained from SHIP training.
79
learning about seed processing, they also had
lessons on good agricultural practices. Thus,
SHIP comprised two components: training on
seed accumulation processes (SAP) and training
on good agricultural practices (GAP) (Fig. 1.).
Metaphorically, the former could be dubbed the
engine of the SHIP and the latter, the body of the
SHIP.
Ends and means of SHIP
SHIP ways
Engine/Heart Body
Seed accumulation Good agricultural
practices (SAP) practices (GAP)
Farmers at key sites
Barisal Chuadanga Rajshahi Bogra Gazipur Habiganj Rangpur
Trained
(30X7=210)
Bangladesh
Fig. 1. Instruments of SHIP. SHIP has two tiers: training of farmers
on SAP as well as on GAP.
The objective, in a narrower sense, is to help
farmers increase output. But, broadly viewed,
SHIP’s aim was to ensure the ‘development’
of farmers. In their definition of development,
economists have emphasized the expansion of
the human potential. For example, in reviewing
the concept of development, Sen (1988, 1999)
stressed the importance of enhancing people’s
freedom to choose. Society’s development is
assessed by its capacity to offer its members a
choice among a range of productive activities.
For example, Bauer (1984) suggests that the
“extension of the range of choices of people as
consumers and producers is perhaps the most
satisfactory criterion of economic development.“
Tripp (2001) argues,“Development is not
judged by whether farmers grow traditional
varieties or ones that are products of formal
plant breeding, but rather by the range of
productive choices that are at their disposal.
Development is not assessed by whether farmers
80
save seed, but rather by their security of access
to seed, from their own farms or through the
market. Development is not dependent on the
existence of the latest agricultural innovations,
but rather on farmers’ access to innovation about
technology, their familiarity with providers of
technology (public or private), and their ability
to press for change or redress if they are not
satisfied with its performance.”
Since seeds constitute the soul of farmers’
survival and they carry information about
farmers’ experience, formal research, and
market demand (Tripp 2001), we take the
notion that seed management could affect
their livelihood systems and development. The
relationship between SHIP and development
could be gleaned from Figure 2. Once farmers
are given training on SAP and GAP, the project
anticipates two initial impacts. First, farmers
would benefit from the economy of scale in
using resources, that is, less resources would
now be required to produce the same level of
output. Second, there would flow increased
income as the result of enhanced yield per unit
of land (Hossain et al 2000, BRRI 1999). Thus,
savings on one hand and income on the other
would bring farmers to a situation of food
security (or rice security since SHIP’s training is
aimed on rice seeds only).
Notwithstanding this consumption freedom,
healthy seeds could raise land productivity
to relieve farmers’ pressure to put more
rented land under cultivation. Or it could
SAP SAP
SHIP Knowledge
Economy of Increased
resources income
Food security
Freedom of choice
Development
Fig. 2. SHIP and development: a logical framework.
release farmers from working on other’s land SHIP, (b) trained farmers—those who received
as laborers. The increase in income could training from fellow farmers in subsequent
also allow more resources to be allocated for periods, and (c) exposed farmers—those who
children’s education, housing, and starting a lived in the same village of the participant
business. By and large, the availability of healthy
or trained farmers but who did not receive
seeds could give resource-poor farmers more training (however, since they were exposed to
options to choose from. the training of their fellow villagers, they might
have experienced ‘spill-over’ impacts from
Objectives SHIP training), and (d) control farmers—those
This study on SHIP was carried out with the who did not have any “spill-over” benefits due
following objectives: to their remote location. By and large, control
(a) To examine to what extent the trained farmers were chosen from villages far away
farmers adopted the technology offered from the villages of participant or trained
by SHIP and to detect differences in seed farmers.
manage-ment practices between trained It was stipulated that 70 farmers from each
and untrained farmers. group would constitute the sample. From
(b) To assess the economic impact of SHIP the list of farmers provided by the partner
on yield, rice income, cost savings, and food organizations, the sample farmers were
security. randomly selected. The number of farmers who
(c) To assess the noneconomic or qualitative answered the structured questionnaires was
impact of SHIP, especially on women 280.
empowerment, human capital formation, and Informal/unstructured survey. Besides the
overall development of target farmers. formal approach toward collecting quantitative
(d) To assess the macroeconomic implications of information from farmers through structured
SHIP. questionnaires, an informal or unstructured
(e) To draw some policy implications. approach was done to assess the qualitative
aspects of SHIP impact. The informal discourse
Hypotheses with farmers deliberated mostly on the impacts
The following hypotheses have been set: on women empowerment, capacity building
(a) New seed management techniques (human capital formation), and the newly
propagated by SHIP helped raise farmers’ emerged choice set—consumption, production,
yield. changes in rural markets, etc. Along with
(b) The training from SHIP helped farmers save informal discussions, a few case studies were
costs on account of seed and other inputs. developed for further deliberations.
(c) SHIP training raised rice income and
reduced food insecurity. About sample farmers
(d) SHIP training contributed to human capital Age and education. Table 1 presents information
formation and overall development of the on age and education of sample farmers. The
participants. mean age was about 45 years and there seemed
to be no significant differences in age across
Methodologies and data source farmer types. A difference, however, could
Formal/structured survey. A socioeconomic be discerned when educational status was
survey was conducted in seven project areas considered. About 46% of participant farmers
of Bangladesh. The survey was undertaken and 41% of their spouses had secondary-level
with structured questionnaires administered education in comparison with 31% for the total
on sample farmers. Farmers have been grouped sample. Again, the share of illiterate farmers was
into four: (a) participant farmers—those who lower (almost half) among participant farmers
participated in the experiments and received compared with those in other groups. These
training on seed management provided by imply that participant farmers were drawn from
the relatively educated class.
81
Table 1. Age and education of sample farmers.a
Land endowments. In Table 2, we present
Farmer Sample Age Level of education information on land cultivated by farmers. For
type size (yr) Illiterate Can read Primary Secondary all farmers in the sample, the average size of cul-
and sign & above
tivated land was estimated to be about 0.68 ha.
Participant 70 43.6 5.7 25.7 17.1 45.7 However, cultivated land of participant farmers
(12.9) (17.1) (27.1) (41.4) appeared to be 25% higher (at 0.85 ha) than the
Trained 70 44.8 10.0 22.9 32.9 25.7 average. Among farmers under SHIP training,
(14.3) (32.9) (26.8) (22.9)
Exposed 70 43.3 8.6 31.4 30.0 21.4 the exposed farmers had the smallest landhold-
(18.6) (34.3) (27.1) (20.01) ing.
Control 70 47.0 14.3 22.9 26.8 31.4
(27.1) (22.9) (31.4) (18.6)
All farmers 280 44.7 9.6 25.7 27.7 31.1
(18.2) (26.8) (26.8) (25.7) ASSESSMENT OF ECONOMIC IMPACT
a
From a 2004 field survey. Figures in parentheses indicate education of spouse.
Impact on knowledge
At the outset of socioeconomic assessment, one
Table 2. Size of cultivated land of sample farmers.a needs to explore to what extent the lessons of
SHIP-led training reached farmers and whether
Farmer type Cultivated land (ha)
seed management activities of target farmers
Total land Own land Rented/leased land
(trained) differed substantially from those of the
Participant 0.85 0.67 0.18 control group. Table 3 provides information on
Trained 0.62 0.42 0.20
Exposed 0.55 0.44 0.10
seed management practices reported by farmer-
Control 0.70 0.55 0.15 respondents.
All farmers 0.68 0.52 0.16
a
From a 2004 field survey.

Table 3. Responses on seed selection techniques.a

Training tip Type of farmers Total

Participant Trained Exposed Control

Use of markers/symbols 100.0 98.6 48.6 32.9 70.0

Rougeing selected portions of the field 98.6 97.1 44.3 28.6 67.1
Cutting panicles at the right time of crop maturity 98.6 90.0 60.0 35.7 71.1
Keeping seed by cutting a portion of the grains after harvest 1.4 10.0 37.1 64.3 28.2
Seed drying 100.0 98.6 97.1 100.0 98.9
Three times 15.7 21.4 22.9 30.0 22.5
More than three times 84.3 77.1 70.0 70.0 75.4
Use of additives in storing 92.9 77.1 31.4 10.0 52.9
Additive type
Neem leaf 75.7 70.0 17.1 5.7 42.1
Biskatali 22.9 17.1 8.6 12.1
Chalk powder/naphthalene 11.4 12.9 11.6 12.5
Cleaning before sowing
97.1 100.0 82.9 74.3 88.6
Should seed get special attention? 100.0 98.6 98.6 97.1 98.6
Information or training on seed management 100.0 100.0 2.0 0.0 50.0
Do not dry seed separately
50.0 61.4 38.6 15.7 41.4
Drying methods
Use tables for sun drying 25.7 8.6 8.6
Paved floors 11.4 2.9 2.9 2.9 5.0
Earthen floor 30.0 30.0 57.1 84.3 50.4
Storage
Tin can 55.7 24.3 21.4 11.4 28.2
Plastic drum 74.3 28.6 5.7 4.3 28.2
Jute bag with polythene 5.7 21.4 27.1 25.7 20.0
Jute bag without polythene 2.9 2.9 8.6 22.9 9.3
Earthen motka 17.1 30.0 44.3 47.1 34.6
Painted earthen motka 30.0 30.0 8.6 1.4 17.5
a
From a 2004 field survey.

82
 It can be observed that, in rogueing the Impact on insecticide cost
field, cutting panicles at the right time, using That a positive development pertaining to pest
additives, and proper storing of seeds, the pressure reduced the cost of insecticides could
target farmers were ahead of the control also be borne out by the data reported on Table
farmers. In fact, these were some of the lessons 6. In case of BR11, participant farmers tended to
provided during the training. The reported seed have 93% less cost than control farmers. When
management behavior of farmers also showed we took the average between participant and
that most of the trained farmers continued to trained farmers (target farmers), the difference
adhere to the practices suggested by SHIP. was 89%. On the other hand, in the case of
BRRI Dhan 28, the difference in costs incurred
Sources of seeds between participant and control farmers was as
Table 4 presents information on the sources of high as 127% and, against the average, was 38%.
seeds used by sample farmers. Of the sample For all rice varieties, the control farmers spent
farmers, 79% reported that they used seeds 38% more on pesticides than did target farmers
saved from their own harvests (roughly 81% who directly or indirectly received training from
each of participant and exposed farmers and SHIP.
77% of trained farmers). Table 4. Sources of rice seed (% of farmers).a
Another 9% reported that
they obtained seeds from Source Farmer types Total Benchmark

neighbors/friends either Participant Trained Exposed Control

through purchase or Own stock/harvest 81.2 77.1 80.5 78.4 79.3 81.6
exchange. About 6% of the Purchased from neighbors/friends 5.8 7.8 5.4 7.9 6.7 6.5
Exchanged with other farmers 3.6 2.0 2.7 2.1 2.6 3.5
sample farmers mentioned NGOs 2.7 6.8 0.5 1.6 3.0 0.3
government institutions Government institutions 3.6 3.4 5.4 3.7 3.7 5.0
(e.g., Bangladesh Agriculture Others (e.g., private traders) 3.1 2.9 5.4 6.3 4.4 3.2

Development Corporation Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

[BADC] and BRRI) as sources Sources: 2004 field survey, Hossain et al (2000).
a

of seeds. Nongovernment
organizations (NGOs) supplied seeds to 3% of Table 5. Farmers’ responses with respect to pest pressure.a
sample farmers, whereas 4% of farmers availed
Farmer category Change in pest pressure (response in %)
of seeds from private traders and other sources.
In Bangladesh, farmers’ own stock was the Substantially Marginally No change
dominant source of seed supply at the farms. reduced reduced

This implies that, since more than four-fifths of
farm seeds originate from the household level,
training could claim special attention from a
policy point of view.
Participant farmer (n=70) 68.6 30.0 1.4
Trained farmer (n=70) 51.4 45.7 2.9
Total (n=140) 60.0 37.9 2.1
Source: 2004 field survey.
a

Impact on pest pressure

Better management of seeds would result
in healthy seeds, which, in turn, would
be more resistant to pest pressure. About
69% of the participant farmers reported a
substantial reduction in pest pressure following
improvement in seed quality (Table 5). However,
30% reported a marginal decline. On the other
hand, among the trained farmers, 51% reported
a substantial decline in pest pressure, followed
by about 46% reporting a marginal decline.
Table 6. Cost of pesticide used (Tk ha–1), by farmer type, 2004.a
Farmer type BR11 BRRI Dhan 28 BR11 + BRRI Dhan 28
+ BRRI Dhan 29
(a) Participant 199 264 239
(b) Trained 362 782 515
(c) Exposed 416 697 433
(d) Control 531 723 521
(e) Total 384 599 423
(d) over (a) (%) 93 127 118
(d) over (a+b) (%) 89 3 8 38
Source: 2004 field survey.
a

83
Impact on seed use
For BR11, control or untrained farmers used 31%
more seed than did the participant farmers and
26% more than did the trained farmers (Table
7). On average, for all varieties, control farmers
used about 31% more seeds per hectare than
did the target farmers who received training
on quality seed. As a result, the cost incurred
by control farmers on account of seeds also
remained higher than that of target farmers.
Impact on rice yield
The project assumed that, as a result of training
resource-poor farmers on seed management,
yield would go up by roughly 10% from the
pre-SHIP period yield. To examine the trend, we
present information on actual yield obtained by
farmers.
The yield of BR11 attained by participant
farmers stood at 4.1 t ha–1 compared with 3.3 t
ha–1 of the control farmers (Table 8). This implies
a 24% edge of participant farmers. In fact,
compared with the control farmers, two other
types of farmers—trained and exposed—had a
definite edge as far as yield level of BR11 was
concerned.
In the case of BRRI Dhan 28 (a variety
grown in the dry season), there seemed to be
no significant difference across farmer types,
although the yield level of participant farmers
stayed higher at 5.7 t ha–1 compared with
5.4 t ha–1 for the other groups. The yield gap
widened again with BRRI Dhan 29. The yield of
participant farmers stood at 5.9 t ha–1 as against
5 t ha–1 of the control farmers. Thus, participant
farmers seemingly stole an edge over the control
farmers by 18%.
Rice security
One of the objectives of SHIP was to train
farmers on seed management so that they
could enhance their access to rice from their
own production. We asked target farmers (both
participant and trained) and control farmers
through structured questionnaires whether they
were able to meet their rice requirements from
their own production.
Table 9 provides information on the
percentage of rice needs met from the farmers’
84
own production. Four-fifths of the rice needs
of participant and trained farmers households
were met from their own production, roughly
79% of the target households. The share of
exposed farm households stood at 84%. Thus,
seemingly, SHIP-influenced households banked
more on their own farms than did the control
group.
Table 10 provides the same kind of
information on the basis of land size. It can
be observed that 42% of the target farmers
cultivating less than 50 decimals reported
meeting their rice needs from their own farms.
This compares with 25% of the same group
Table 7. Seed use and seed costs, by farmer type, 2004.a
Farmer type BR11 BRRI Dhan28 BR11+BRRI Dhan 28
+ BRRI Dhan 29
Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost
(kg ha–1) (Tk ha–1) (kg ha–1) (Tk ha–1) (kg ha–1) (Tk ha–1)
(a) Participant 51 656 52 696 50 662
(b) Trained 53 586 51 663 53 627
(c) Exposed 66 735 75 922 64 729
(d) Control 67 762 70 767 67 744
(e) Total 60 691 61 751 59 693
(d) over (a) (%) 31 16 35 10 34 12
(d) over (b) (%) 26 30 37 16 26 19
Source: 2004 field survey.
a
Table 8. Yield of paddy (t ha–1), by farmer type.
Farmer type BR11 BRRI Dhan 28 BRRI Dhan 29
(a) Participant 4.1 5.7 5.9
(b) Trained 4.0 5.4 5.2
(c) Exposed 4.1 5.4 5.8
(d) Control 3.3 5.4 5.0
(a) over (d) (%) 24 6 18
(b) over (d) (%) 21 0 4
Source: 2004 field survey.
Table 9. Share of own farms (%) in meeting rice needs.
Farmer type Sources of rice supply
Own farm Purchased Loan/gift Others
Participant 89.6 10.4 -- --
Trained 85.4 14.6 -- --
Exposed 84.2 15.2 0.6 --
Control 78.9 21.0 -- 0.1
All farmers 84.5 15.3 … a …
Source: 2004 field survey. a… negligible.
in control villages. Thus, except for large
land-owning groups where we observed no
difference in terms of rice flowing from their
own farms, we noticed that target farmers were
in a better position than those in the control
group. The poorest of the poor farmers, that is,
the functionally landless, seemed to meet their
rice needs from their own farms.
Cost and returns
Table 11 presents information on cost and
returns. Total cost of production (average for
BR11, BRRI Dhan 28, and BRRI Dhan 29) was
estimated to be roughly 8% higher for target
farmers compared with control farmers, but the
value of output was found to be higher by 17%,
implying an increased yield per unit of land.
Thus, rice income of target farmers was up by
about one-fifth, compared with that of control
farmers. Finally, the unit cost of production
among target farmers was 8% lower. By and
large, target farmers were better positioned in
rice production than control farmers.
Regression analyses
The model.While many of the positive impacts
of SHIP-led training, as posited before, could
be a matter of mere correlation, we have
attempted to identify the causal link between
the dependent variable, yield, and an array of
independent or explanatory variables that are
said to affect farmers’ yield. Remember our a
priori hypothesis: training on seed management
improves yield. To identify the causal link,
we ran a multiple regression using some
explanatory variables. The functional form is as
follows:
Y = α + β1X1 +β2X2 +β3X3 +β4X4 +β5X5
+…+ β12X12 + ε
where Y = yield ha ;
–1
X1= TFRCHA=total fertilizer cost (Tk ha–1);
X2= IRGCHA=irrigation cost (Tk ha–1);
X3= TLBLHA=total labor use (d ha–1);
X4= PWRCHA=cost of machine animal power Farm income 21,246 17,763 19.6
(Tk ha–1);
X5= BR28DUM=1’ for growing variety,
otherwise, ‘0’;
X6= BR29DUM= ‘1’ for growing the variety,
otherwise, ‘0’;
X7= Farmer1=participant farmers (dummy for
those picked up by SHIP);
X8= Farmer2=trained farmers (dummy for those
trained by Farmer 1);
X9= YLDLOS1=yield loss due to pest attack (%);
X10=YLDLOS2=yield loss due to other causes (%);
X11=FM1PLOS*YLDLOS1;
X12=DUMPLG=intensive plowing (dummy); and
ε = error term.
Regression results. The results of the
regression analysis are shown in Table 12. The
adjusted R2 was estimated to be 0.59, implying
that 59% of the variation in the dependent
variable (yield) is explained by the explanatory
factors chosen for the function. In econometric
parlance, the function can be termed a good fit.
However, a few observations from Table 12 are
discussed below.
First, the regression coefficient concerning
FARMER1 showed that participant farmers had
about 544 kg ha–1 more rice than the control
farmers. It was highly significant at the 1% level.
A mean yield of 4,700 kg ha–1 means that the
yield of participant farmers was roughly 10%
higher than that of the nonparticipant farmers.
These results agree with available empirical
Table 10. Rice needs met from own farms
(% of farmers).
Land size group Farmer type Total
(decimals) Target Control
0-50 42 25 50
51-100 77 71 75
101-150 94 84 89
250+ 100 100 100
Source: 2004 field survey.
Table 11. Cost and returns (Tk ha–1) of rice cultivation.
Indicator Target farmers Control farmers Target over
control (%)
Total cost of cultivation 22,997 21,371 7.6
Gross value of output 40,680 34,761 17.0
Operating surplus 17,683 13,390 32.1
Unit cost (Tk ha–1) 4,787 5,180 (-) 8.2
Source: 2004 field survey.
85
evidence which shows a 10-12% increased
yield with cleaner seeds (Hossain et al 2000;
BRRI 1999). The earlier hypothesis (that seed
management training would raise the yield of
participating farmers) is thus accepted.
Second, trained farmers had, on average,
79 kg ha–1 more rice than those in the control
group. It was only about 2% higher than the
mean yield. However, the T statistics showed
that the difference was not significant.
Third, the adoption of BRRI Dhan 28―a
dry-season HYV―provided about half a ton
ha–1 more output than BR11, a wet-season HYV.
The adoption of BRRI Dhan 29 provided almost
a 1 t ha–1 more output than BRRI Dhan 11 and
about half a t ha–1 more than BRRI Dhan 28.
Both outcomes were highly significant, pointing,
perhaps, to the fact that farmers would benefit
from growing BRRI Dhan 28, but they will get
more if they grow BRRI Dhan 29.
Table 12. Yield determinant function: regression results.
Variable Coefficient t value Sig T
TFRCHA Total fertilizer cost (Tk ha–1) 0.0740 2.032 0.0434
IRGCHA Irrigation cost (Tk ha–1) 0.0553 2.703 0.0074
TLBLHA Total labor use (d ha–1) 2.4878 2.190 0. 0296
PWRCHA Cost of machine animal power (Tk ha–1) 0.1010 1.843 0.0667
BR28DUM Growing BRRI Dhan 28 (dummy) 543.5367 2.366 0.0189
BR29DUM Growing BRRI Dhan 29 (dummy) 928.5286 4.886 0.0000
FARMER1 Participant farmers (dummy) 452.7976 2.543 0.0117
FARMER2 Trained farmers (dummy) 79.1959 0.502 0.6162
YLDLOS1 Yield loss due to pest attack (%) -7.8634 -4.497 0.0000
YLDLOS2 Yield loss due to other causes (%) -13.0265 -4.239 0.0000
FM1PLOS FM1PLOS*YLDLOS1 -10.9658 -2.034 0.0432
DUMPLG Intensive plowing (dummy) 98.0650 1.783 0.0761
Constant 2970.7894 10.249 0.0000
Adjusted R2 = 0.59 F value=27.73
Fourth, other important factors significantly
explain the positive variations in yield—fertili-
zer cost, labor use, and irrigation cost. The
coefficients were highly significant, confirming
earlier findings. Again, the significant negative
factors are attack from pests and other natural
hazards. The signs of the coefficients and their
level of significance imply that farmers face yield
loss on account of pests and natural disasters.
By and large, the regression results suggest
that, other favorable factors held constant,
participating farmers performed better in terms
of achieving yield per unit of land. Intuitively,
the training from SHIP helped farmers improve
seed health and healthy seeds resulted in
healthy yields. The policy implication of such
a finding is that the seed management training
offered by SHIP should be given to more farmer
groups in Bangladesh.
Rate of return from SHIP
The most pertinent question is “Was the project
worth pursuing?” Did the cost of the project
match the benefits? Would it be like that in the
future? For the sake of simplicity, we consider
only one year and only two varieties, BRRI Dhan
29 and BR11.
Table 13 provides a rough estimate of the
actual gain that accrued to the project areas in
terms of rice production in one season. About
8,000 t of additional rice were produced in
project areas by the farmers who received SHIP-
led training on seed management practices.
At the existing international prices of rice, the
dollar value of this amount of rice ($240 t–1) was
about $2 million, as against the total cost of the

Table 13. Rice production in the project areas.

Parameter Post-SHIP Pre-SHIP Extra

BR 29 BR 11 BR 29 BR 11 BR 29 BR 11

Farmers (no.) 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 0 0

Average cultivated land (ha) 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0 0
Yield (t ha–1) 5.7 4.1 5.1 3.4 0.6 0.7
Total production of paddy (t) 54,264 39,032 48,552 32,368 5,712 6,664
Rice equivalent (t) 36,900 26,542 33,015 22,010 3,885 4,532
Value of rice at international price $9 million $6 million $8 million $5million $1 million $1 million
($240 t–1) (Total $15 million) (Total $ 13 million) (Total $2 million)
Total cost of SHIP ($) $ 3.1 million
Benefit from SHIP ($) $ 2 million
Benefit-cost ratio 0.6:1 approximately

86
4-yr, project, estimated to be $3.1 million. The
benefit-cost ratio estimated for that particular
year, thus, stood at 0.6:1. This means that project
cost has almost been recovered with 1 year’s
output. Quite obviously, with the end of the
project, there will be no more expenses but
streams of benefits would continue to come. It
is, therefore, judged that the project was worth
taking up.
NONECONOMIC IMPACT
Women’s role: from servers to managers
We shall deliberately avoid the women
empowerment issue mainly because power
could operate in different ways―starting
from domination to self-confidence, such
as “power to,” “power with,” and “power
within” (Williams et al 1994; Oxaal and
Baden 1997; Kabeer 1999, 2000). This could
possibly constitute a separate agenda of
research. However, from our observations,
the empowerment issue could be sensed, if not
measured, by constructing an empowerment
index.
About 70% of the trained women (i.e., those
participating in the discussions) admitted that
they had never talked with outsiders (such
as extension workers) before. Only SHIP and
its partners paved the way for meeting with
outsiders. Roughly 30% reported that they had
not visited fields before. But, this time, to see
for themselves the fruits of their hard work,
they went there and occasionally helped their
husbands thresh or even harvest the crop.
Table 14. Distribution of work on seed management, by gender (per
33 decimals).
Work type Required number Man/woman Mostly
of hours -days performed by
Rogueing 24 3 Male
Harvesting/ 40 5 Male
threshing/harrowing
Winnowing 16 2 Female
Drying 30 4 (approx) Female
Soaking 5 0.6 Female
Packing/storing 5 0.6 Female
Total 120 15
Source: 2004 field survey.
The extent of women’s involvement in seed
management reflects the effect of the training on
their status as seed managers. It takes 120 h or 15
man-days to complete the tasks―as prescribed
by SHIP―during a particular season (3 mo)
(Table 14). Out of this, men account for 8 man-
days and women, 7 man-days. At the existing
wage rate, say, at the Chuadanga site, the total
cost of seed management comes to Tk 830 per 33
decimals, of which men account for Tk 480 (58%)
and women, Tk 350 (42%).
This kind of involvement gave women some
kind of “ownership” to the value added. For
example, women participants said,“we never
took care of seeds. In the past, we were ‘ordered’
by our husbands to keep a portion of the grains
as seeds. Now, learning from SHIP, we take
care of them as if we are taking care of our own
babies; always on the watch so that seeds do not
fall sick.” Furthermore, the women reported
that
(a) Now, they have more discussions at
the family level (on seed management
and agricultural practices) and they
participate more and have the power
to decide about doings things. That was
not the case a few years back.
(b) Some women sell seeds to meet family
needs.
(c) Women are growingly given a say in
crop choices, input procurement, and
output disposal.
Freedom of choice
Participating farmers witnessed an increase
in the domain of options pertaining to
consumption, credit, labor, etc. (Table 15 and
case studies). Before the training and yield
increase, most of the farmers had very little
choices on these aspects, but with the increased
yield and income, they reported to have gained
some space in this regard.
Knowledge spillover
The knowledge about SHIP spilled over to
fellow farmers―within and outside respective
villages. Exposed farmers are taking up the skill,
implying a spillover within villages. But reports
of knowledge spreading outside the villages
87
 Table 15: Expansion of choices as a result of exposure to SHIP.

Choice Pre-SHIP Post-SHIP

(Forced) (Actual/Capacitated)

1. Consumption Choice
1.1 Food item
Rice  2-2.5 kg/day  3-3.5 kg/day
 Always coarse rice  Sometimes fine rice (BR29/28)
 One or two meals/day  Three meals/day
Fish  Mostly dry fish from market  Dry fish but not dominant
 Fresh fish once in 6 or 12 mo  Once or twice a week
Meat  Once a year (Eid gift)  Once or twice in 6 mo
 Occasional as maid or muni 
Vegetables  Less  More
Fruits from market  Never  Rarely
1.2 Non-food item
Clothing  1 saree or 1 lungi/year  2-3 saree or lungi/year
Schooling of children  Never (elder ones illiterate)  Younger ones in school
Housing  Straw roof  Tin roof/maintenance
2. Labor choice
Day labor  Main source of livelihood  Minor source of livelihood
Housemaid  Main source of livelihood  Minor source of livelihood
3. Tenurial choice
Amount of rented land  As much as possible  As least as possible
Nature of contract  Mostly sharecropping  Leasing/more share in inputs
Market position  Chased by owners  Chased by owners
4. Credit choice  NGO/mohajan/others  Own source
5. Cultivation choice  Monocropping  Multicropping

are also given. Besides, there was in evidence management became visible with their
another kind of spillover effect: farmers are now roles shifting from “seed servers” before
serious about seed health of other crops such as SHIP to “seed managers” after SHIP. In the
maize, brinjal, and others. process, their mobility within and outside
the village increased. They now have greater
Confidence and social status say in seed selection and use of agricultural
The training seems to have raised the confidence practices. Following a rise in knowledge
of farmers―from depending on luck to stock and income, trained farmers now have
depending on labor. The participant farmers wider choices of consumption, credit, labor,
seemed to be more determined about achieving and tenancy.
a good outcome from their training. • By and large, project costs could be recovered
from the incremental rice output obtained in
CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS a year in sample areas of operation of SHIP.
Positive aspects
• The SHIP-led inputs provided positive Negative aspects
economic outputs in terms of 10% yield • Roughly one-third of the participants in the
increase. It helps economize on the use of training belonged to land-owning groups—
pesticides and seeds per unit of land. By i.e., holding more than 2.5 acres of land. This
and large, farmers participating in the went against the basic premise of the project,
training incurred Tk 300-400 fewer cost per that of empowering resource-poor farmers.
unit of land than did the untrained farmers. One could possibly argue that one-third of
The rice income of the trained farmers the resource-poor farmers could not
was higher than the income of others. be covered by SHIP training.
Ipso facto, food security of trained farmers • From the very inception of the project, staff
was enhanced. from the Directorate of Agricultural
• No less important were the noneconomic Extension (DAE) were invited but they
benefits. The women’s role in seed failed to come. DAE should have played
88
 a part since it has about 12,000 field-level Bauer PT. 1984. Reality and rhetoric. Studies in the
workers throughout Bangladesh. Economics of Development. Cambridge, Massachusetts
(USA): Harvard University Press
• Field-level observations pointed to the project Cowen MP, Shenton RW. 1996. Doctrines of development.
totally banking on some NGOs, which may London: Routledge.
not have the required manpower to carry out Diaz C, Hossain M, Bose ML, Merca S Mew TW. 2000. Effect
such activities. of seed quality on rice yield. Paper presented at the
• Farmers alleged that the training period was Review and Planning Meeting on Rice Seed Health
Improvement for Increasing Yield and Reducing Pest
too short and they were not able to compre-
Pressures in Bangladesh, 25-26 Nov 2000, BIDS, Dhaka,
hend the lessons properly. Bangladesh.
• The project could have selected a few women Elazegui FA, Mew TW. 2000. Impact of seed quality on
household heads who rely mostly on crop health and pest pressure. Paper presented at the
agriculture for survival. Review and Planning Meeting on Rice Seed Health
Improvement for Increasing Yield and Reducing Pest
Pressures in Bangladesh, 25-26 Nov 2007, BIDS, Dhaka,
Policy implications
Bangladesh,.
• Farmers throughout Bangladesh should be Hossain M, Diaz C, Bose ML, Mew TW. 2000. Rice seed
trained on seed health management management in Bangladesh: a study of farmers’
adopting the SHIP model. As far as seed knowledge and practice. Paper presented at the
supply is concerned, every village should Review and Planning Meeting on Rice Seed Health
have seed entrepreneurs to reduce their Improvement for Increasing Yield and Reducing Pest
Pressures in Bangladesh, 25-26 Nov 2007, BIDS, Dhaka,
dependence on the markets. Bangladesh.
• The DAE should be entrusted, along Kabeer N. 1999. The conditions and consequences of
with some reputable NGOs such as choices: reflections on the measurement of women’s
BRAC and Proshika, to promote a empowerment. UNRISD Discussion Paper DP108.
technology-upscaling process. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social
Development.
• Half of the villages in Bangladesh should
Kabeer N. 2000. Resources, agency, achievement: reflections
be exposed to training. From each village, on the measurement of women’s empowerment. Paper
four farmers could be trained. This would presented at the conference “Power, resources and
mean training of roughly 134,000 farmers culture in a gender perspective: towards a dialogue
in the next 5 yr. The cost-benefit ratio between gender research and development practice”,
suggests that the project is worth pursuing 26-27 Oct 2007, Uppsala, Sweden.
Oxaal Z, Baden S. 1997. Briefing prepared for the Swedish
and the government would be able to International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA).
manage resources from domestic sources. Gender and empowerment: definition, approaches and
implications for policy. (unpubl.)
Williams SS, Janet Adelina M. 1994. Oxfam gender training
References manual. UK: Oxford.
Alam MS, Quayum MA. 1999. MV rice seed use: status and Sen A. 1988. The concept of development. In: Chenery H,
constraints on the use of better seed at the farm level. Srinivasan TN, editors. Handbook of development
Bangladesh J. Agric. Res. 25(2). economics. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: North Holland.
BRRI—Bangladesh Rice Research Institute. 1999. Seed Health Sen A. 1999. Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford
Improvement Project for Rice in Bangladesh. Plant University Press.
Pathology Department, BRRI, and IRRI. Tripp R. 2001. Seed provision and agricultural development.
London: Overseas Development Institute.