Alternative and conventional rice farming in M'lang, Cotabato, Philippines

Results of the study showed that alternative rice farmers were mostly female, had small landholdings, and were highly dispersed throughout the area. Practitioners were relatively older, moderately educated, and had farmed longer. They had lesser gross annual household income compared with the conventional rice farmers. Alternative rice farmers had less capital to finance farm expenses but had more household family participation in the various rice farm activities. Women in the alternative group played a more active role in the decision-making process, particularly in crop diversification and selection of soil nutrient and pest management strategies. Using the revised alternative-conventional agricultural paradigm (ACAP) scale, results revealed that rice farmers did not really fall into two distinct camps of competing perspectives. The total mean score revealed a more alternative view for the alternative rice farmers (17 to 18 items) while conventional rice farmers revealed alternative views on 13 of the 18 items. Although both groups showed a strong gravitation towards financial independence, the alternative group identified more indicators of sustainable agriculture under more diverse categories. In addition, both groups showed poor identification of indicators falling under participatory or community dimensions. Results further revealed that the local indicators differ with those identified by experts. Most conventional rice farmers had negative perception of alternative agriculture and were generally doubtful of the benefits associated with alternative agriculture. Results revealed that while computed land productivity of the conventional group was higher than that of the alternative group, computed net income of the latter was higher. The financial relative advantage of the alternative farming was however, contingent on a number of factors. These included less expenses for synthetic inputs and labor, and price premiums given by NGOs [non-government organization]. They had more diversified farms, reported less crop damage caused by pests, and were more optimistic of harvesting better yield, and consequently, expected better income from rice in the next five years. They saw their farming practices as more sustainable primarily because they were not using synthetic inputs, which they believed contributed to environmental problems they associated with chemical use. Alternative rice farmers received credit, marketing, technical, and human resource development support from existing NGOs. They also attended training programs of more varied profile and had more training days. They showed more knowledge of alternative soil nutrient and pest management practices and undertook more general environmental actions than the conventional group. Conversion to alternative agriculture requires additional time, new knowledge and skills. While this may suit smaller farms with full-time farmers, this current impression does not fit well with the profile of most conventional rice farmers who had bigger landholdings and had more non-farm income than the current practitioners. In conclusion, the study discusses the possible options that could facilitate better understanding and diffusion of alternative farming. The strategies include looking into the technological aspects of alternative agriculture and the specific rice farming practices, as well as the institutional aspects that are important in facilitating the transition to a more sustainable agriculture