35
An International Center for Soil Fertility and Agricultural Development The Social Performance of an Innovative Method of Rice Fertilization in Southern Asia
AnInternationalCenter for
Soil Fertilityand
AgriculturalDevelopment
The Social Performance of anInnovative Method of RiceFertilization in Southern Asia
i
The Social Performance of an InnovativeMethod of Rice Fertilization in Southern Asia
by
Thomas P. ThompsonSenior Scientist—Sociology
Research and Market Development Division
An International Center for Soil Fertilityand Agricultural Development
P.O. Box 2040Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35662, U.S.A.
www.ifdc.org
August 2007
ii
IFDC—An International Center for Soil Fertility and Agricultural DevelopmentP.O. Box 2040Muscle Shoals, AL 35662 (U.S.A.)
Telephone: +1 (256) 381-6600Telefax: +1 (256) 381-7408E-Mail: [email protected] Site: www.ifdc.org
IFDC publications are listed in IFDC Publications, General Publication IFDC–G-1; the publications catalogis free of charge.
iii
Foreword
Through participatory research, monitoring, evaluation, and information dissemination, theIFAD-funded “Adapting Nutrient Management Technologies” (ANMAT) Project has demonstratedthat farmers in Bangladesh have successfully adopted urea deep placement (UDP), an improvednutrient management practice for rice production.
The nature of the socioeconomic research is unique because increased rice yield has not beenviewed as an end but a means to reduce poverty, increase household food security, and improvestandards of living among those who practice fertilizer deep placement. The adoption of new tech-nologies by farmers, even those that appear to offer great benefits, takes time, effort, and persis-tence. The baseline (pre-intervention) socioeconomic surveys, followed by similar surveys of thesame farmers, have allowed the impacts, benefits, and consequences as well as characteristics thatinfluence use and adoption to be determined and documented in Bangladesh.
This paper, “The Social Performance of an Innovative Method of Rice Fertilization in SouthernAsia,” documents benefits of UDP that are agricultural in nature and those that are not agriculturalper se. The latter includes standards of living, household property, new employment opportunities,and housing characteristics. An innovative feature of the socioeconomic surveys is to ask farmers tostate “life wishes” as baseline qualitative data and determine realization of those wishes in subse-quent surveys. Thus ANMAT does not establish a priori goals or benefits for farmers but seeks todocument benefits reported by farmers on the basis of their own definitions of needs and aspirations.
Amit RoyIFDC President and
Chief Executive Officer
iv
v
Preface
With funding and support from the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), IFDC (AnInternational Center for Soil Fertility and Agricultural Development) implemented the Adapting NutrientManagement Technologies (ANMAT) Project in South Asia. The 3-year project was designed for participa-tory research and evaluation of the use of urea supergranules and other nutrient management practices inpaddy production. The practice of urea deep placement (UDP) offers small and marginal farmers an opportu-nity to increase paddy yield and thereby improve their income and standard of living. The research reportedhere describes the impact of the UDP practice on the socioeconomic and agricultural characteristics of small-scale paddy producers. The survey compares pre- and post-intervention data to be used to evaluate socioeco-nomic and agricultural change among a sample of farmers who were introduced to the practice of UDP duringthe 1999-2000 cropping season. The impact assessment was conducted in 2002.
The ANMAT staff—Ray B. Diamond, Resident Project Coordinator; Kh. Makbul Elahi, Project Officer;Syed Afzal Hossain, Data Analyst; and Mofizul Islam, Senior Agriculturalist—all contributed to the datacollection and analyses. Ray Diamond offered extremely useful insights, provided conceptual clarification ofthe measurements and data, and offered a critical evaluation that greatly benefited this report. His contribu-tions and support are appreciated and gratefully acknowledged. Makbul Elahi arranged field trips, assisted ininterviewing and selecting enumerators, and otherwise contributed to making the fieldwork proceed smoothly.Syed Afzal Hossain demonstrated his superior skills at data input and analysis. His patience and attention todetail greatly benefited the work in general and the report in particular. His contributions are gratefullyacknowledged.
The support of four NGOs is gratefully acknowledged: People’s Oriented Program Implementation(POPI), Kishoreganj; Development Organization for the Rural Poor (DORP), Chandur; International Devel-opment Enterprises (IDE), Bogra; and Padakhep Manabik Unnayan Kendra (PMUK) in Jessore.
vi
vii
Table of Contents
PageBackground ......................................................................................................................................................... 1Analytical Approach ........................................................................................................................................... 5Research Findings .............................................................................................................................................. 5
Urea Use ....................................................................................................................................................... 5Expenditures for Fertilizer ............................................................................................................................ 5Comparison of Broadcast and UDP Yields ................................................................................................... 7
Household Food Security ................................................................................................................................... 9Household Property ............................................................................................................................................ 9
Radio Ownership .......................................................................................................................................... 9Television Ownership ................................................................................................................................. 11Bicycle Ownership ...................................................................................................................................... 11Traction Animal Ownership ........................................................................................................................ 12Animal Ownership ...................................................................................................................................... 12Investment in Agricultural Equipment ........................................................................................................ 14
Paddy Sales Income .......................................................................................................................................... 14Expenditures for Hired Labor ........................................................................................................................... 16
Fertilizer Application .................................................................................................................................. 16Weeding ...................................................................................................................................................... 17
Housing Characteristics .................................................................................................................................... 18Mud Houses ................................................................................................................................................ 18Tin Houses .................................................................................................................................................. 18House Flooring ........................................................................................................................................... 19
Qualitative Benefits of UDP Use ...................................................................................................................... 20References ........................................................................................................................................................ 20
viii
List of Tables
Table 1. Baseline and Impact Sample Farm Sizes by DistrictTable 2. A Comparison of Pre- and Post-Intervention Mean Broadcast Urea Applied (kg/ha) by Users and
Nonusers of UDP by Season and DistrictTable 3. A Comparison of Mean Expenditures (US $/ha) for Broadcast Urea and USG by Season and
DistrictTable 4. A Comparison of Pre-Intervention Mean Broadcast Paddy Yields with Post-Intervention Yields
Among Users of UDP and Pre- and Post-Intervention Mean Broadcast Paddy Yields AmongNonusers of UDP by Season and District (kg/ha)
Table 5. A Comparison of Annual Food Security Provided by Pre-Intervention and Post-Intervention RiceProduction
Table 6. A Comparison of Pre- and Post-Intervention Mean Radio Ownership of Users and Nonusers ofUDP by District
Table 7. A Comparison of Pre- and Post-Intervention Mean Television Ownership of Users and Nonusersof UDP by District
Table 8. A Comparison of Pre- and Post-Intervention Mean Bicycle Ownership of Users and Nonusers ofUDP by District
Table 9. A Comparison of Pre- and Post-Intervention Mean Traction Animal Ownership Among Users andNonusers of UDP by District
Table 10. A Comparison of Pre- and Post-Intervention Mean Fowl Ownership Among Users and Nonusers ofUDP by District
Table 11. A Comparison of Pre- and Post-Intervention Mean Small Ruminant Ownership Among Users andNonusers of UDP by District
Table 12. A Comparison of Pre- and Post-Intervention Mean Investment (US $) in Agricultural EquipmentAmong Users and Nonusers of UDP by District
Table 13. A Comparison of Pre- and Post-Intervention Mean Paddy Income (US $) of Users and Nonusers ofUDP by District
Table 14. A Comparison of Mean Expenditures for Hired Labor Days Per Hectare for Fertilizer Applicationon Broadcast and UDP Areas by Season and District
Table 15. A Comparison of Mean Expenditures for Hired Labor Days Per Hectare for Weeding on Broadcastand UDP Areas by Season and District
Table 16. A Comparison of Pre- and Post-Intervention Mean Occupancy of Mud Houses by Users and Nonusersof UDP by District
Table 17. A Comparison of Pre- and Post-Intervention Mean Occupancy of Tin Houses by Users and Nonusersof UDP by District
Table 18. A Comparison of Pre- and Post-Intervention Mean Mud Floors in Houses Among Users and Nonusersof UDP by District
Table 19. Qualitative Benefits of UDP Reported by Users by District and Rank
List of Figures
Figure 1. Pre- and Post-UDP Intervention Areas in Bangladesh
ix
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
ANMAT Adapting Nutrient Management TechnologiesDORP Development Organization for the Rural Poorha hectareIDE International Development EnterprisesIFAD International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentIFDC International Fertilizer Development Center (An International Center for
Soil Fertility and Agricultural Development)KCal kilocaloriekg kilogramNGO non-governmental organizationPMUK Padakhep Manabik Unnayan KendraPOPI People’s Oriented Program ImplementationUDP urea deep placementUSG urea supergranules
Cropping Seasons
Aman Rice transplanted in July-August and harvested in November-December
Rabi/Boro Rice transplanted in January-February and harvested in May-June
x
1
Background
Rice is a staple food crop for over 2 billionpeople and directly or indirectly provides employ-ment for about 1 billion people in southern andsoutheastern Asia. More than 90% of the rice in theworld is grown in Asia where one-half of the world’spopulation and 80% of the world’s poor are concen-trated. Demand for rice driven by population growthis such that 80–100 million new consumers of riceare added to the world population annually. Tosatisfy the increasing demand for rice, productionmust increase by 60% to 760 million tons by theyear 2020. Only 4% of world rice production ismarketed internationally, and 96% or about 460 mil-lion tons is consumed in the country where it isharvested. The importance of small-scale farmers inproducing rice is evident because about one-half ofthe rice grown in Asia is consumed by producers.Rice is more than a food crop—it is a facet of life inmany developing countries [4]. This paper exploresthe social performance of an innovative method ofrice fertilization in Bangladesh.
The most prevalent method of applying nitrog-enous fertilizer to rice is a basal application with orwithout incorporation before transplanting. This isfollowed by one or more topdressings in the flood-water within 3–4 weeks after transplanting up tonear the flowering stage. Numerous research reports,however, have shown that such practices are ineffi-cient because generally only about one-third of thefertilizer N is used by plants and the remainder islost through volatilization, denitrification, runoff,and leaching or is immobilized in the soil [6].
An innovative means to reduce N losses andimprove fertilizer efficiency is to deep place fertil-izer N as urea supergranules (USG) of compactedprilled urea that may be produced by a village-levelbriquetting machine. The basic method of USGapplication is to place USG by hand betweenalternate four hills of rice at a depth of 7–10 cmabout 3–7 days after transplanting. Although thismethod of N application increases labor time
compared with broadcasting urea, urea deep place-ment (UDP) can ensure modest yield increases of0.5 to 1.0 ton/ha over traditional methods of N ratesof 40–60 kg/ha [6]. The potential yield increasesthrough the use of USG have prompted the interestof national and international organizations todemonstrate this fertilizer technology on the fieldsof farmers in developing countries [1,2,3,5,7]. Theagricultural technology of USG and the nitrogenmanagement practice of deep placement holdpromise for those farmers cultivating rice on smallplots in developing countries where increased yieldsare of critical importance [6,8].
Through funding from the International Fund forAgricultural Development (IFAD), the pre-intervention baseline data presented and discussed inthis report were collected in January and February of2000, specifically, in Bangladesh in the districts ofChandpur, Kishoreganj, and Bogra. In Jessore,interviews were conducted in April 2000. Thesample is comprised of 1,026 farmers with 300 inMatlab Thana, Chandpur; 300 in Bajitpur andBhairab Thanas, Kishoreganj; 125 in Sherpur Thana,Bogra; and 301 in Jhikorgacha and Sharsha Thanas,Jessore. All data pertain to the 1999 calendar year.These areas were chosen because entrepreneurspurchased briquetting machines and were offeringthe innovative urea briquettes in the market. Figure 1shows the geographical locations of the pre- andpost-UDP intervention districts in Bangladesh.
During January and February of 2002, the post-intervention impact data were collected from astratified random sample of 560 farmers or about a55% sample of the pre-intervention baseline sampleof 1,026 farmers. The sample was stratified on farmsize and household type. The sample of 560 farmerswas then divided into two groups of users andnonusers of the UDP practice.
The baseline and impact sample sizes by farmtype and district are shown in Table 1. These datashow that all baseline districts and farm typesdefined by size of holdings are represented in the
The Social Performance of an InnovativeMethod of Rice Fertilization in Southern Asia
2
Figure 1. Pre- and Post-UDP Intervention Areas in Bangladesh
3
Tabl
e 1.
Bas
elin
e an
d Im
pact
Sam
ple
Farm
Siz
es b
y D
istr
ict
Ty
pe
IT
yp
eII
Ty
pe
III
Ty
pe
IVT
yp
eV
(.0
01
–.3
99
ha)
(.4
00
–.6
00
ha)
(.6
01
–1
.00
0h
a)(1
.00
1–
2.0
00
ha)
(>=
2.0
01
ha)
To
tal
Bas
elin
eS
amp
leIm
pac
tS
amp
leB
asel
ine
Sam
ple
Imp
act
Sam
ple
Bas
elin
eS
amp
leIm
pac
tS
amp
leB
asel
ine
Sam
ple
Imp
act
Sam
ple
Bas
elin
eS
amp
leIm
pac
tS
amp
leB
asel
ine
Sam
ple
Imp
act
Sam
ple
Dis
tric
tN
um
ber
(Per
cen
t)N
um
ber
(Per
cen
t)N
um
ber
(Per
cen
t)N
um
ber
(Per
cen
t)N
um
ber
(Per
cen
t)N
um
ber
(Per
cen
t)N
um
ber
(Per
cen
t)N
um
ber
(Per
cen
t)N
um
ber
(Per
cen
t)N
um
ber
(Per
cen
t)N
um
ber
(Per
cen
t)N
um
ber
(Per
cen
t)
13
07
58
03
06
12
62
41
95
33
00
15
3C
han
dp
ur
(43
.0)
(43
.1)
(32
.0)
(23
.6)
(26
.2)
(19
.7)
(13
.9)
(20
.9)
(7.4
)(8
.3)
(29
.3)
(27
.3)
99
44
78
46
60
41
52
19
113
30
01
53
Kis
ho
reg
anj
(32
.8)
(25
.3)
(31
.2)
(36
.2)
(25
.8)
(31
.1)
(30
.1)
(20
.9)
(16
.2)
(8.3
)(2
9.2
)(2
7.3
)
38
19
30
21
20
28
23
19
14
13
12
51
00
Bo
gra
(12
.6)
(10
.9)
(12
.0)
(16
.5)
(8.6
)(2
1.2
)(1
3.3
)(2
0.9
)(2
0.6
)(3
6.1
)(1
2.2
)(1
7.9
)
35
36
62
30
92
37
74
34
38
17
30
11
54
Jess
ore
(11
.6)
(20
.7)
(24
.8)
(23
.6)
(39
.5)
(28
.0)
(42
.8)
(37
.4)
(55
.9)
(47
.2)
(29
.3)
(27
.5)
30
21
74
25
01
27
23
31
32
17
39
16
83
61
02
65
60
To
tal
(29
.4)
(31
.1)
(24
.4)
(22
.7)
(22
.7)
(23
.6)
(16
.9)
(16
.3)
(6.6
)(6
.4)
(10
0.0
)(1
00
.0)
4
impact sample. Intentional over-sampling is evidentonly for the district of Bogra, where the baselinesample was significantly smaller than that of theother sample districts. These data show clearly thatthe impact analysis reported here is based on arepresentative, random, and stratified sample of thebaseline farmers [9,10].
The questionnaire was initially developed atIFDC headquarters and tested and modified inBangladesh. The survey instrument was divided intotwo major sections. One section sought generalsocioeconomic and the other agronomic data.Specifically, the following variables are covered:• Socioeconomic data about the farmer.• Socioeconomic data on household composition.• Type of household structure.• Household furnishings.• Area cultivated by season.• Land tenure.• Fertilizer use.
• Agricultural credit.• Use of hired labor.• Irrigation.• Land preparation.• Transplanting.• Gender disaggregated labor data.• UDP and broadcast yields.• Child labor.• Ownership of agricultural equipment.• Ownership of household furnishings.• Investment in agricultural equipment.• House and roof type.• Animal ownership.• Household income.• Crop and animal income.• Off-farm employment.• Benefits of UDP use.• Life wishes.• Planned UDP use in 2002.
Summary of Salient Findings
• The practice of UDP was introduced to 1,026 farmers in Chandpur, Kishoreganj, Bogra, and Jessore (Table 1).• UDP farmers significantly reduced the use of broadcast urea, most notably in the Rabi/Boro season (Tables 2 and
3).• UDP farmers also significantly increased paddy yields by an average 37.6% in the Rabi/Boro season and 45.6% in
the Aman season (Table 4).• On average, improved rice production among UDP users provided the annual rice requirement for an additional 3.2
persons (Table 5).• Radio ownership among UDP users increased significantly by 19.1% during the period between the baseline and
impact surveys (Table 6).• Compared with nonusers, television ownership significantly increased among UDP users (Table 7).• Compared with nonusers, UDP farmers substantially increased bicycle ownership from 64.0% in the pre-interven-
tion period to 83.0% in the post-intervention period (Table 8).• The ownership of traction animals among UDP users remained rather constant compared with a 22.6% decrease
among nonusers. UDP users were less compelled to dispose of traction animals (Table 9). This is also the case forownership of fowl (Table 10).
• Compared with nonusers, UDP farmers were far more likely to make investments in agricultural equipment and onaverage increased that investment by 12.2% (Table 12).
• On average UDP users increased income from paddy sales by 10.6% compared with a decrease of 15.6% amongnonusers (Table 13).
• UDP users provided opportunities for rural employment in fertilizer application by substantially increasing expendi-tures for hired labor on UDP plots. Those expenditures increased by 251.4% in the Rabi/Boro season and 222.5%in the Aman season on average (Table 14).
• UDP users reported having significantly less labor for weeding. Specifically, mean expenditures for hired weedinglabor decreased on average by 35.9% in the Rabi/Boro season and 26.1% in the Aman season (Table 15).
• Compared with nonusers, UDP farmers reduced the percentage of mud floors in their houses by 7.6% on average.• The five greatest benefits of UDP use reported by farmers are increased rice storage, payment of school expenses,
improved houses, improved finances, and purchase of animals (Table 19).
5
Analytical Approach
The analyses presented and discussed here arebased on a paired comparison of 560 pairs offarmers from the pre-intervention survey who werealso interviewed in the post-intervention survey.That sample of 560 pairs is divided into two groupsof 295 pairs of UDP users and 265 pairs of nonusers.Nonusers never used the practice of UDP, and userspracticed broadcast and UDP paddy cultivation onlyin the post-intervention period but were nonusers inthe pre-intervention period. It is on this basis thatusers and nonusers of UDP are compared, and theconsequences of UDP use are evaluated by a two-tailed paired t-test.
The following hypothesis is tested uniformlythroughout the analysis:
Ho : μ 1t – μ2t = O
where t1 = pre-intervention population mean and t2 =post-intervention population mean.
Thus, the null hypothesis of no differencebetween the pre- and post-intervention means of xvariable is tested for paired farmers who are usersand nonusers of UDP in each district and for eachuser category in total. Throughout this report, afinding of not significant (NS) indicates that thehypothesis of no difference in means cannot berejected and a statistically significant difference inmeans indicates the hypothesis of no difference maybe rejected at the reported level of statistical signifi-cance. Each mean or percentage difference is testedat the 0.10, 0.05, 0.02, 0.01, and 0.001 levels ofstatistical significance. NS means nonsignificant at
= 0.1.
Research Findings
Urea UseOne of the attractive aspects of UDP is that
users may expect to reasonably reduce the quantityof urea applied and thus reduce monetary expendi-tures for that nutrient. The data in Table 2 show acomparison of pre- and post-intervention mean
broadcast urea applied by users and nonusers ofUDP by district and season.
Indeed these data for UDP users showed thatstatistically significant decreases in mean broadcasturea applied were reported in the districts ofKishoreganj (–12.4%), Jessore (–16.9%), and for thetotal user sample in the Rabi/Boro season (–8.2%). Adecrease (–3.0%) was reported by the Bogra sampleand is without significance. Among UDP users in theRabi/Boro season, only the district of Chandpurreported a significant increase in mean broadcastapplied urea (12.4%).
Although mean broadcast urea applied de-creased significantly among nonusers for the Rabi/Boro season in Kishoreganj (–16.6%) and Jessore(–8.5%), it increased significantly in Chandpur(24.9%). Insignificant increases were reported byBogra (6.8%) and for the total nonuser sample(0.4%). On average, the total figures for users andnonusers of UDP in the Rabi/Boro season show thatusers applied significantly less broadcast urea thannonusers.
In the Aman season, users of UDP by districtand in the aggregate reported no significant changesin mean broadcast urea applied in the post-interventionperiod compared with the pre-intervention period.
Among nonusers in the Aman season, Table 2shows no significant change in applied broadcasturea in Kishoreganj (3.0%) and the total nonusersample (–2.1%). Significant decreases amongnonusers were reported by the samples in Bogra (–27.2%) and Jessore (–11.3%). The only district toreport a significant increase was Chandpur (18.9%).
Expenditures for FertilizerSince the introduction of USG in Bangladesh,
farmers have been informed by brochures, videos,field days, radio and television announcements, andby extension services that the practice of UDP andthe use of USG have the potential to increase yieldsand reduce monetary expenditures for urea. The datain Table 3 confirm that benefit was realized wellamong users of UDP during the pre-and post-intervention period.
6
Tabl
e 2.
A C
ompa
rison
of P
re- a
nd P
ost-I
nter
vent
ion
Mea
n B
road
cast
Ure
a A
pplie
d (k
g/ha
) by
Use
rs a
nd N
onus
ers
of U
DP
by S
easo
n an
dD
istr
ict
NS:
Not
stat
istic
ally
sign
ifica
nt a
t =
0.1.
Onl
y fa
rmer
s cul
tivat
ing
broa
dcas
t pad
dy in
the
pre-
and
pos
t-int
erve
ntio
n pe
riods
are
con
side
red.
Cu
rren
tU
DP
Use
rsC
urr
ent
UD
PN
on
use
rs
Mea
nB
road
cast
Ure
aA
pp
lied
kg
/ha
Mea
nB
road
cast
Ure
aA
pp
lied
kg
/ha
Dis
tric
tN
um
ber
of
Pai
red
Far
mer
sP
re-
Inte
rven
tio
nP
ost
-In
terv
enti
on
Per
cen
tag
eIn
crea
se/
(Dec
reas
e)
Lev
elo
fS
tati
stic
alS
ign
ific
ance
Nu
mb
ero
fP
aire
dF
arm
ers
Pre
-In
terv
enti
on
Po
st-
Inte
rven
tio
n
Per
cen
tag
eIn
crea
se/
(Dec
reas
e)
Lev
elo
fS
tati
stic
alS
ign
ific
ance
Rab
i/B
oro
Sea
son
Ch
and
pu
r3
82
54
.42
85
.91
2.4
.10
49
23
5.2
29
3.7
24
.9.0
01
Kis
ho
reg
anj
93
28
6.3
25
0.7
(12
.4)
.01
22
26
6.0
22
1.8
(16
.6)
.01
Bo
gra
30
27
4.7
26
6.4
(3.0
)N
S6
72
57
.12
74
.66
.8N
S
Jess
ore
41
35
7.9
29
7.4
(16
.9)
.01
91
35
6.6
32
6.2
(8.5
).0
1
To
tal
20
22
93
.12
69
.1(8
.2)
.01
22
92
92
.82
94
.10
.4N
S
Am
anS
easo
n
Ch
and
pu
r5
32
14
.12
33
.18
.9N
S7
91
95
.12
32
.01
8.9
.00
1
Kis
ho
reg
anj
40
21
8.2
18
7.6
(14
.0)
NS
111
79
.11
84
.43
.0N
S
Bo
gra
27
112
.21
37
.12
2.2
NS
64
16
9.0
12
3.0
(27
.2)
.01
Jess
ore
39
26
2.2
25
2.8
(3.6
)N
S8
03
03
.12
68
.7(1
1.3
).0
5
To
tal
15
92
09
.72
10
.20
.2N
S2
34
23
5.1
23
0.1
(2.1
)N
S
7
During the Rabi/Boro season and on average,those who practiced UDP experienced a 32.2%decrease in expenditures for urea on the UDP areacompared with the broadcast paddy area. Thegreatest saving was reported by the AdaptingNutrient Management Technologies (ANMAT)project sample in Kishoreganj (38.1%) followed byBogra (31.2%), Jessore (29.6%), and Chandpur(25.5%). Each of these changes is statisticallysignificant and is within the expected range.
A very similar pattern is evident in Table 3 forthe Aman season where on average the sample ofUDP users decreased expenditures for urea by23.5%. The greatest saving was reported by thesample in Chandpur (32.8%), followed byKishoreganj (27.8%), Bogra (26.5%), and Jessore(17.6%); with the exception of Jessore, all saving isstatistically significant.
Comparison of Broadcastand UDP Yields
The data on paddy yields shown in Table 4 areinstructive per se and provide a lesson on agricul-tural survey work in developing countries in generaland Bangladesh in particular. It appears that thepaddy yield data for Chandpur and Kishoreganj arewell above reasonable agronomic expectations. The
Table 3. A Comparison of Mean Expenditures (US $/ha) for Broadcast Urea and USG by Season andDistrict
US $1 = Tk 57.40.NS: Not statistically significant at = 0.1.Only farmers cultivating broadcast and UDP paddy areas in the post-intervention period are considered.
over-estimation of yields may be attributed to atleast two factors. First, farmers in Bangladesh arepolite and cooperative to field interviews, but it isvirtually impossible to interview a particular farmerwithout others present. This is far less than idealbecause interviews intended for a single farmerbecome “public events” complete with observers,especially when a “foreigner” is present. Succinctly,interviews are a “village event” in Bangladesh thatgive farmers an opportunity to embellish yields toimpress others. Second, the livelihoods of non-governmental organization (NGO) personnel whoconduct interviews are dependent on “good” projectresults. That dependency creates an incentive toembellish paddy yields because those yields are the“essence of everything” in rural Bangladesh. Yieldsare status, prestige, economic security, and the veryfabric of social life and subsistence.
Every effort and full attention was given to thepotential problem of yield data during the trainingsessions for interviewers. Various ANMAT staffmembers monitored interviews to check the qualityand reasonableness of yield data. Despite that effort,it appears that in some cases embellished UDPyields were reported in the districts of Chandpur andKishoreganj. Specifically, the problems are limitedto Chandpur in the Rabi/Boro season where UDP is
Current UDP Users
Mean Urea Expenditure (US $/ha)District
Number ofPaired Farmers Broadcast Area UDP Area
PercentageIncrease/
(Decrease)
Level ofStatistical
Significance
Rabi/Boro Season
Chandpur 51 30.60 22.80 (25.5) .001
Kishoreganj 90 26.00 16.10 (38.1) .001
Bogra 15 26.60 18.30 (31.2) .001
Jessore 42 32.40 22.80 (29.6) .001
Total 198 28.60 19.40 (32.2) .001
Aman Season
Chandpur 16 23.50 15.80 (32.8) .001
Kishoreganj 41 19.40 14.00 (27.8) .001
Bogra 4 15.50 11.40 (26.5) .05
Jessore 40 27.30 22.50 (17.6) NS
Total 101 23.00 17.60 (23.5) .01
8
Tabl
e 4.
A C
ompa
rison
of P
re-In
terv
entio
n M
ean
Bro
adca
st P
addy
Yie
lds
with
Pos
t-Int
erve
ntio
n Yi
elds
Am
ong
Use
rs o
f UD
P an
d Pr
e- a
ndPo
st-In
terv
entio
n M
ean
Bro
adca
st P
addy
Yie
lds
Am
ong
Non
user
s of
UD
P by
Sea
son
and
Dis
tric
t (kg
/ha)
NS:
Not
stat
istic
ally
sign
ifica
nt a
t =
0.1
.O
nly
farm
ers c
ultiv
atin
g in
bot
h th
e pr
e- a
nd p
ost-i
nter
vent
ion
perio
ds a
re c
onsi
dere
d.In
Cha
ndpu
r dur
ing
the
base
line
perio
d, fe
eder
can
als f
or th
e irr
igat
ion
syst
em w
ere
not f
ully
com
plet
ed a
nd th
e irr
igat
ion
wat
er w
as n
ot su
pplie
d in
a ti
mel
y m
anne
r. B
etw
een
the
base
line
and
impa
ct su
rvey
, sub
stan
tial i
mpr
ovem
ent i
n th
e irr
igat
ion
syst
em w
ith a
tim
ely
wat
er su
pply
was
est
ablis
hed.
At t
he ti
me
of w
ritin
g th
e im
pact
repo
rt, th
e irr
igat
ion
syst
em in
the
Cha
ndpu
r UD
P ar
ea w
as v
irtua
lly c
ompl
eted
.
Curr
ent
UD
PU
sers
Curr
ent
UD
PN
onuse
rs
Mea
nP
addy
Yie
ldM
ean
Pad
dy
Yie
ld
Dis
tric
t
Num
ber
of
Pai
red
Far
mer
sP
re-
Inte
rven
tion
Post
-In
terv
enti
on
Per
centa
ge
Incr
ease
/(D
ecre
ase)
Lev
elof
Sta
tist
ical
Sig
nif
ican
ce
Num
ber
of
Pai
red
Far
mer
sP
re-
Inte
rven
tion
Post
-In
terv
enti
on
Per
centa
ge
Incr
ease
/(D
ecre
ase)
Lev
elof
Sta
tist
ical
Sig
nif
ican
ce
Rab
i/B
oro
Sea
son
Chan
dpur
47
3,9
51
6,5
72
66.3
.001
49
3,8
47
5,3
07
38.0
.001
Kis
hore
gan
j11
74,9
71
6,8
62
38.0
.001
22
4,6
49
5,0
64
8.9
NS
Bogra
17
4,4
84
4,7
64
6.2
NS
67
4,5
85
4,6
82
2.1
NS
Jess
ore
56
5,4
76
6,9
62
27.1
.001
91
5,6
31
5,8
40
3.7
.02
Tota
l237
4,8
53
6,6
78
37.6
.001
229
4,8
49
5,3
13
9.6
.001
Am
anS
easo
n
Chan
dpur
36
3,7
10
5,2
97
42.8
.001
78
3,3
32
4,1
79
25.4
.001
Kis
hore
gan
j84
3,6
15
5,7
73
59.7
.001
112,9
99
4,6
01
53.4
.01
Bogra
54,0
04
4,6
73
16.7
NS
64
3,7
87
3,2
60
(13.9
).0
01
Jess
ore
47
4,2
73
5,5
08
28.9
.001
80
4,3
62
4,4
65
2.4
NS
Tota
l172
3,8
26
5,5
69
45.6
.001
233
3,7
95
4,0
44
6.6
.01
9
reported to have increased paddy yields by 66.3%above broadcast yields and for Kishoreganj in theAman season where that reported yield increaseaveraged 59.7%. Finally, in this regard the sample inChandpur reported an average increased UDP yieldof 42.8% compared with broadcast paddy. That isalso above expectation but possible because of a lowpre-intervention yield and significant improvementsin the irrigation system during the project period.
With these caveats, the data in Table 4 show acomparison of pre-intervention mean broadcast ureapaddy yields with post-intervention UDP yieldsamong UDP users and pre- and post-interventionmean broadcast paddy yields among nonusers ofUDP by season and district. The reader should notethat, based on demonstration data, paddy yields fromUDP may be reasonably expected to increase byabout 18%–35% over broadcast yields.
Among users of UDP, very significant increasesin UDP paddy yields compared with broadcast yieldswere reported for all districts except Bogra, wherean increase of 6.2% is not statistically significant.Statistically significant paddy yield increases werereported by UDP users in Chandpur (66.3%),Kishoreganj (38.0%), Jessore (27.1%), and for thetotal sample of UDP users (37.6%) in the Rabi/Boroseason.
Yield increases were also reported by nonusersof UDP for broadcast paddy between the pre- andpost-intervention period. However, the percentagechange is not nearly of the magnitude of the UDPincreases, even compared with those that are prob-ably embellished. As a background note, during thepast 2 years paddy yields in Bangladesh have beenhigher than in nearly a decade.
That said, nonusers in the districts of Chandpur(38.0%), Jessore (3.7%), and the total sample ofnonusers in the Rabi/Boro season (9.6%) reportedstatistically significant increases in broadcast yieldduring the pre- and post-intervention period. In-creases without statistical significance were reportedby nonusers in Kishoreganj (8.9%) and Bogra(2.1%) in the Rabi/Boro season.
Among users of UDP in the Aman season, allsample districts reported percentage increases inUDP paddy production compared with the practice
of broadcasting urea, and the increases (exceptBogra with 16.7%) are statistically significant. Usersin Chandpur (42.8%), Kishoreganj (59.7%), Jessore(28.9%), and the total sample of users in the Amanseason reported increases with statisticalsignificance.
Among nonusers of UDP, all districts reportedincreases in broadcasted paddy yields in the Amanseason and only in Jessore is that increase withoutstatistical significance (2.4%), Chandpur (25.4%),Kishoreganj (53.4%), and the total nonuser sample(6.6%) reported a statistically significant increase.Among all districts and seasons, only Bogra(–13.9%) reported a statistically significant decreasein broadcast paddy yields during the pre- and post-intervention surveys.
Household Food Security
The incremental rice yield attributable to the useof USG and the UDP practice may be sold or placedin storage. If storage is chosen rather than sale, thenhousehold food security is improved. It appears thatstorage is the modal option among farm householdswhere UDP is practiced (see Table 14).
One method to compare the poverty alleviationvalue of additional rice production attributable to thepractice of UDP is base pre-intervention productionon the UDP area as a focused and refined point ofcomparison. The data in Table 5 show a comparisonof annual food security provided by pre- and post-intervention rice production on that basis.
The mean additional persons provided theannual rice requirement above the poverty level isstatistically significant in Chandpur (2.8),Kishoreganj (3.1), Bogra (0.6), Jessore (4.5), andamong all UDP farmers (3.2). Thus, the UDPpractice contributes significantly to poverty allevia-tion in Bangladesh.
Household Property
Radio OwnershipCompared with nonusers (8.2%), users (19.1%)
of UDP significantly increased radio ownershipduring the pre- and post-intervention period. By
10
Mea
nR
ice
Pro
duct
ion
Bas
edon
UD
PA
rea
Mea
nP
erso
ns
Pro
vid
edA
nnual
Ric
eR
equir
emen
t
Dis
tric
tN
um
ber
of
Pai
red
Far
mer
sP
re-
Inte
rven
tion
Post
-In
terv
enti
on
Pre
-In
terv
enti
on
Post
-In
terv
enti
on
Addit
ional
Per
sons
Per
centa
ge
Incr
ease
/(D
ecre
ase)
Lev
elof
Sta
tist
ical
Sig
nif
ican
ce
Chan
dpur
61
678
1,3
03
3.0
5.8
2.8
93.3
.001
Kis
hore
gan
j130
1,2
32
1,9
32
5.5
8.6
3.1
56.4
.001
Bogra
20
1,0
36
1,1
72
4.6
5.2
0.6
13.0
.05
Jess
ore
58
2,3
84
3,4
01
10.7
15.2
4.5
42.1
.001
Tota
l269
1,3
40
2,0
50
6.0
9.2
3.2
53.3
.001
Tabl
e 5.
A C
ompa
risio
n of
Ann
ual F
ood
Secu
rity
Prov
ided
by
Pre-
Inte
rven
tion
and
Post
-Inte
rven
tion
Ric
e Pr
oduc
tion
Ann
ual r
ice
requ
irem
ent p
er p
erso
n =
223.
5 kg
.O
nly
farm
ers c
ultiv
atin
g in
bot
h th
e pr
e- a
nd p
ost-i
nter
vent
ion
perio
ds a
re c
onsi
dere
d.Th
e da
ta in
clud
e R
abi/B
oro
and
Am
an se
ason
s.Pr
e-in
terv
entio
n br
oadc
ast p
addy
are
a is
ass
umed
equ
al to
pos
t-int
erve
ntio
n U
DP
area
.
11
district radio ownership among users increasedsignificantly in Chandpur (22.4%) and Kishoreganj(49.2%). Ownership decreased in Bogra (–6.3%)and Jessore (–15.9%).
Among nonusers the data in Table 6 show thatradio ownership increased substantially in thedistrict of Chandpur (56.4%). Ownership alsoincreased in Kishoreganj (17.4%) and Bogra (7.0%).A decrease in radio ownership was reported inJessore (–12.6%).
Television OwnershipThe data in Table 7 show that in the aggregate,
television ownership among users (109.3%) andnonusers (54.0%) increased greatly during theperiod. By district, users reported increases intelevision ownership in Chandpur (172.7%),Kishoreganj (151.4%), and Jessore (77.4%). Therewas no change in television ownership during thepre- and post-intervention period in Bogra.
Table 6. A Comparison of Pre- and Post-Intervention Mean Radio Ownership of Users and Nonusersof UDP by District
Among nonusers, increases in ownership werereported in Chandpur (287.5%) and Kishoreganj(614.3%). Ownership increased by 23.9% in Bograand remained constant in Jessore. Radio and televi-sion are means of social integration through accessto information and news, especially agriculturalnews. These data show that the practice of UDP is ameans to develop social integration in ruralBangladesh.
Bicycle OwnershipGeographical mobility is important but some-
times limited in rural Bangladesh. Personal transpor-tation by bicycle is favored over “hired rickshaws”and carries a measure of status and freedom. Forthese reasons bicycle ownership is desirable and anindicator of “standard of living.”
The data in Table 8 show clearly that UDP usersin Chandpur (148.4%), Kishoreganj (58.8%),Jessore (11.4%), and the total sample of users
Table 7. A Comparison of Pre- and Post-Intervention Mean Television Ownership of Users andNonusers of UDP by District
Current UDP Users Current UDP Nonusers
Percent Radio Ownership Percent Radio Ownership
District
Numberof PairedFarmers
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
PercentageIncrease/
(Decrease)
Numberof PairedFarmers
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
PercentageIncrease/
(Decrease)
Chandpur 66 0.67 0.82 22.4 65 0.55 0.86 56.4
Kishoreganj 107 0.59 0.88 49.2 16 0.69 0.81 17.4
Bogra 20 0.80 0.75 (6.3) 42 0.71 0.76 7.0
Jessore 55 0.82 0.69 (15.9) 86 0.87 0.76 (12.6)
Total 248 0.68 0.81 19.1 209 0.73 0.79 8.2
Current UDP Users Current UDP Nonusers
Percent TelevisionOwnership
Percent TelevisionOwnership
District
Numberof PairedFarmers
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
PercentageIncrease/
(Decrease)
Numberof PairedFarmers
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
PercentageIncrease/
(Decrease)
Chandpur 39 33.0 90.0 172.7 29 24.0 93.0 287.5
Kishoreganj 52 35.0 88.0 151.4 7 14.0 100.0 614.3
Bogra 11 82.0 82.0 0.0 24 67.0 83.0 23.9
Jessore 36 53.0 94.0 77.4 51 63.0 63.0 0.0
Total 138 43.0 90.0 109.3 111 50.0 77.0 54.0
12
increased bicycle ownership. Only users in Bograreported a decrease in ownership (14.3%). Overall,UDP users clearly increased bicycle ownership inthe period between the baseline and impact surveys(29.7%).
Among nonusers, only Kishoreganj (244.8%) ofthe total sample (14.7%) reported significant in-creases in bicycle ownership. Increases were alsoreported in the districts of Chandpur (51.2%), Bogra(4.4%), and Jessore (6.7%).
Clearly, the use of UDP provided resources forfarmers and household members to improve meansof personal transportation beyond that of nonusers.The ease of mobility in Bangladesh is valued anddesirable among rural populations because it en-hances ease of access to markets and transportationof goods.
Traction Animal OwnershipA comparison of pre- and post-intervention
traction animal ownership among users and nonusersof UDP by district is shown in Table 9. Dependingon circumstances, there is a general trend inBangladesh to divest ownership of traction animals.Leather prices were favorable during the pre- andpost-intervention period and prompted farmers tosell animals. Second, during interviews manycomplained of the expense and burden of owningtraction animals. Third, preparation of land bymachine is relatively quicker and less expensive.
Given these considerations, the ownership oftraction animals among users decreased significantlyin Jessore (–23.4%). Decreases were also reported in
Bogra (–4.9%), and for all users (–0.8%) but withoutstatistical significance. Increases in traction animalownership among users were reported in Chandpur(1.8%) and Kishoreganj (13.4%) but were notstatistically significant. The substantial decrease inJessore may be attributable to the flood during theproject period.
Among nonusers, significant decreases intraction animal ownership were reported in Jessore(–45.7%) and for all nonusers (–22.6%). Chandpuralso reported a decrease of 20.3% without statisticalsignificance. An increase was reported in Bogra(15.1%) without significance. The only statisticallysignificant increase in ownership of animal tractionamong nonusers of UDP was reported inKishoreganj (52.9%).
Animal OwnershipFowl Ownership—Table 10 shows a compari-
son of pre- and post-intervention mean fowl owner-ship among users and nonusers of UDP by district.Fowl (chickens, ducks, and pigeons) are a form of“walking capital” and a food source in Bangladesh.
In the aggregate, nonusers of UDP reported astatistically significant decrease in fowl ownership(–11.9%), considerably greater than that among UDPusers (–1.4%). That is not statistically significant. Inthe aggregate these data suggest that compared withnonusers, UDP users were less compelled to sell orconsume fowl during the pre- and post-interventionperiod. Thus, users may benefit from expandingfowl ownership because the base for reproduction isbetter preserved. Among users, Chandpur is the onlydistrict that reported a statistically significant
Table 8. A Comparison of Pre- and Post-Intervention Mean Bicycle Ownership of Users and Nonusersof UDP by District
Current UDP Users Current UDP Nonusers
Percent Bicycle Ownership Percent Bicycle Ownership
District
Numberof PairedFarmers
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
PercentageIncrease/
(Decrease)
Number ofPaired
FarmersPre-
InterventionPost-
Intervention
PercentageIncrease/
(Decrease)
Chandpur 26 31 77 148.4 23 43 65 51.2
Kishoreganj 86 51 81 58.8 7 29 100 244.8
Bogra 23 91 78 (14.3) 34 68 71 4.4
Jessore 58 88 98 11.4 95 89 95 6.7
Total 193 64 83 29.7 159 75 86 14.7
13
Cu
rren
tU
DP
Use
rsC
urr
ent
UD
PN
on
use
rs
Mea
nT
ract
ion
An
imal
sO
wn
edM
ean
Tra
ctio
nA
nim
als
Ow
ned
Dis
tric
t
Nu
mb
ero
fP
aire
dF
arm
ers
Pre
-In
terv
enti
on
Po
st-
Inte
rven
tio
n
Per
cen
tag
eIn
crea
se/
(Dec
reas
e)
Lev
elo
fS
tati
stic
alS
ign
ific
ance
Nu
mb
ero
fP
aire
dF
arm
ers
Pre
-In
terv
enti
on
Po
st-
Inte
rven
tio
n
Per
cen
tag
eIn
crea
se/
(Dec
reas
e)
Lev
elo
fS
tati
stic
alS
ign
ific
ance
Ch
and
pu
r7
11
.63
1.6
61
.8N
S7
31
.58
1.2
6(2
0.3
)N
S
Kis
ho
reg
anj
12
32
.32
2.6
31
3.4
NS
19
1.8
92
.89
52
.9.1
0
Bo
gra
27
3.8
93
.70
(4.9
)N
S5
72
.12
2.4
41
5.1
NS
Jess
ore
55
3.4
22
.62
(23
.4)
.02
94
3.5
21
.91
(45
.7)
.00
1
To
tal
27
62
.51
2.4
9(0
.8)
NS
24
32
.48
1.9
2(2
2.6
).0
01
Tabl
e 9.
A C
ompa
rison
of P
re- a
nd P
ost-I
nter
vent
ion
Mea
n Tr
actio
n A
nim
al O
wne
rshi
p A
mon
g U
sers
and
Non
user
s of
UD
P by
Dis
tric
t
NS:
Not
stat
istic
ally
sign
ifica
nt a
t =
0.1.
Curr
ent
UD
PU
sers
Curr
ent
UD
PN
onuse
rs
Mea
nF
ow
lO
wner
ship
Mea
nF
ow
lO
wner
ship
Dis
tric
t
Num
ber
of
Pai
red
Far
mer
sP
re-
Inte
rven
tion
Post
-In
terv
enti
on
Per
centa
ge
Incr
ease
/(D
ecre
ase)
Lev
elof
Sta
tist
ical
Sig
nif
ican
ce
Num
ber
of
Pai
red
Far
mer
sP
re-
Inte
rven
tion
Post
-In
terv
enti
on
Per
centa
ge
Incr
ease
/(D
ecre
ase)
Lev
elof
Sta
tist
ical
Sig
nif
ican
ce
Chan
dpur
74
13.3
16.9
27.1
.05
79
11.7
12.6
7.7
NS
Kis
hore
gan
j130
13.1
10.7
(18.3
).0
222
12.4
8.8
(29.0
).0
2
Bogra
32
18.5
21.3
15.1
NS
67
17.5
16.3
(6.9
)N
S
Jess
ore
58
16.8
15.0
(10.7
)N
S94
14.7
10.9
(25.9
).0
2
Tota
l294
14.5
14.3
(1.4
)N
S262
14.3
12.6
(11.9
).1
0
Tabl
e 10
. A C
ompa
rison
of P
re- a
nd P
ost-I
nter
vent
ion
Mea
n Fo
wl O
wne
rshi
p A
mon
g U
sers
and
Non
user
s of
UD
P by
Dis
tric
t
NS:
Not
stat
istic
ally
sign
ifica
nt a
t =
0.1.
14
increase in fowl ownership (27.1%). OnlyKishoreganj reported a statistically significantdecrease in fowl ownership among users (–18.3%).Bogra reported an increase (15.1%) and Jessore adecrease in fowl ownership (–10.7%); however, boththese latter changes are without significancestatistically.
Among nonusers the districts of Kishoreganj(–29.0%), Bogra (–6.9%), and Jessore (–25.9%)reported decreases in fowl ownership. However, thedecrease in Bogra is not statistically significant.Chandpur reported an increase of 7.7% also withoutstatistical significance. Clearly, nonusers consumedor sold fowl more than users during the pre- andpost-intervention period.
Small Ruminant Ownership—Among users ofUDP, the data in Table 11 show that mean ownershipof small ruminants decreased in Kishoreganj(–47.4%), Jessore (–11.1%), and for total users(–18.2%). That change was only statistically signifi-cant in Kishoreganj. Ownership increased inChandpur (85.7%) and Bogra (19.0%) but is withoutstatistical significance.
Among UDP nonusers, mean small ruminantownership decreased during the pre- and post-intervention period in Chandpur (–50.0%),Kishoreganj (–18.8%), Jessore (–20.8%), and for allnonusers (–13.6%). With the exception of Jessore,these decreases are without statistical significance.
It may be concluded that the method of Napplication does not significantly influence theownership of small ruminants in general. Thenotable exceptions are Kishoreganj among UDPusers and Jessore among nonusers.
Investment in Agricultural EquipmentRegardless of UDP use, no district in the
ANMAT sample reported a statistically significantmean increase in investment in agricultural equip-ment during the pre- and post-intervention period(Table 12).
On a percentage basis, increased investments inagricultural equipment were reported among UDPusers in the districts of Kishoreganj (11.9%), Bogra
(28.7%), Jessore (23.1%), and for all users (12.2%).Only Chandpur (–40.1%) reported a decrease inmean investment in agricultural equipment.
Among nonusers, percentage decreases ininvestment in agricultural equipment were reportedin the districts of Chandpur (–54.6%), Kishoreganj(–100.0%), Jessore (–27.7%), and for all nonusers(–12.6%). Only Bogra reported an increase (20.4%),which is not statistically significant.
It may be concluded that users improved meaninvestment in agricultural equipment by 12.2%. Incontrast, that investment among nonusers decreasedby 12.6%. Albeit without statistical significance,these changes should not be ignored entirely. Notethat the direction of change among users and nonus-ers is opposite.
Paddy Sales Income
Depending on circumstance and need, paddymay be sold or stored, and the latter evokes theconcept of food security. The data in Table 13provide a comparison of pre- and post-interventionmean paddy income among users and nonusers ofUDP and by deduction a view of paddy storage.
Among UDP users, mean income from sales ofpaddy increased in Chandpur (462.7%), Kishoreganj(2.3%), Bogra (10.7%), and for the sample of users(10.6%). Only the change in Chandpur is statisti-cally significant where the small base sales in thepre-intervention period should be noted. Amongnonusers, income from paddy sales also increasedsignificantly in Chandpur (665.2%), again from asmall pre-intervention base; Kishoreganj (10.7%)was without significance.
Such income decreased in Bogra (–12.7%),Jessore (–60.7%), and for the total sample ofnonusers (–15.6%). Both decreases are statisticallysignificant. The decrease in Jessore is undoubtedlyexplained by the severe floods in that district duringthe pre- and post-intervention period. Note that salesincreased among users (10.6%) and decreasedamong nonusers (–15.6%) in the aggregate. The
15
Curr
ent
UD
PU
sers
Curr
ent
UD
PN
onuse
rs
Mea
nS
mal
lR
um
inan
tsM
ean
Sm
all
Rum
inan
ts
Dis
tric
t
Num
ber
of
Pai
red
Far
mer
sP
re-
Inte
rven
tion
Post
-In
terv
enti
on
Per
centa
ge
Incr
ease
/(D
ecre
ase)
Lev
elof
Sta
tist
ical
Sig
nif
ican
ce
Num
ber
of
Pai
red
Far
mer
sP
re-
Inte
rven
tion
Post
-In
terv
enti
on
Per
centa
ge
Incr
ease
/(D
ecre
ase)
Lev
elof
Sta
tist
ical
Sig
nif
ican
ce
Chan
dpur
60.7
1.3
85.7
NS
41.0
0.5
(50.0
)N
S
Kis
hore
gan
j50
1.9
1.0
(47.4
).0
29
1.6
1.3
(18.8
)N
S
Bogra
15
2.1
2.5
19.0
NS
26
2.1
2.2
4.8
NS
Jess
ore
51
2.7
2.4
(11.1
)N
S81
2.4
1.9
(20.8
).1
0
Tota
l122
2.2
1.8
(18.2
)N
S120
2.2
1.9
(13.6
)N
S
Tabl
e 11
. A
Com
paris
on o
f Pre
- and
Pos
t-Int
erve
ntio
n M
ean
Smal
l Rum
inan
t Ow
ners
hip
Am
ong
Use
rs a
nd N
onus
ers
of U
DP
by D
istr
ict
NS:
Not
stat
istic
ally
sign
ifica
nt a
t =
0.1
.
Tabl
e 12
.A
Com
paris
on o
f Pre
- and
Pos
t-Int
erve
ntio
n M
ean
Inve
stm
ent (
US
$) in
Agr
icul
tura
l Equ
ipm
ent
Am
ong
Use
rs a
nd N
onus
ers
ofU
DP
by D
istr
ict
US
$1 =
Tk
51.0
0.A
gric
ultu
ral e
quip
men
t inc
lude
s pow
er ti
ller,
spra
yer,
irrig
atio
n pu
mp,
wee
ding
mac
hine
, and
pad
dy th
resh
er.
Curr
ent
UD
PU
sers
Curr
ent
UD
PN
onuse
rs
Mea
nIn
ves
tmen
tent
Mea
nIn
ves
tmen
tent
Dis
tric
t
Num
ber
of
Pai
red
Far
mer
sP
re-I
nte
rven
tion
Post
-In
terv
enti
on
Per
centa
ge
Incr
ease
/(D
ecre
ase)
Num
ber
of
Pai
red
Far
mer
sP
re-
Inte
rven
tion
Post
-In
terv
enti
on
Per
centa
ge
Incr
ease
/(D
ecre
ase)
Chan
dpur
48
285.4
6170.9
4(4
0.1
)44
115.6
652.5
(54.6
)
Kis
hore
gan
j101
299.6
6335.3
11.9
22
121.0
50
(100.0
)
Bogra
26
1,0
04.6
21
,292.5
828.7
48
1,0
68.0
61
,285.5
420.4
Jess
ore
50
788.3
2970.7
423.1
73
876.8
8634.0
7(2
7.7
)
Tota
l225
486.6
8545.9
512.2
187
687.3
2600.8
5(1
2.6
)
16
Table 13. A Comparison of Pre- and Post-Intervention Mean Paddy Income (US $) of Users and Nonus-ers of UDP by District
US $1 = Tk 51.00.
opposite directions of change should not be ignoredentirely.
Expenditures for Hired Labor1
Fertilizer ApplicationThe data in Table 14 compare mean expendi-
tures for hired labor for fertilizer application on
broadcast and UDP areas among UDP users byseason and district.
These data for the Rabi/Boro season showsubstantial and statistically significant greaterexpenditures for the UDP area compared with thebroadcast area. In Chandpur that increase is $8.70/ha, Bogra ($13.10/ha), Jessore ($10.90/ha), and forthe overall sample in the Rabi/Boro season ($8.80/ha). An increase in such expenditures was alsoreported in Kishoreganj ($3.10/ha) without statisti-cal significance.
Table 14. A Comparison of Mean Expenditures for Hired Labor Days Per Hectare for Fertilizer Applica-tion on Broadcast and UDP Areas by Season and District
US $1 = Tk 57.40.NS: Not statistically significant at = 0.1.Insufficient cases (1) for analysis in Bogra.
1All $ values are U.S. dollars.
Current UDP Users Current UDP Nonusers
Mean Paddy Income Mean Paddy Income
District
Numberof PairedFarmers
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
PercentageIncrease/
(Decrease)
Number ofPaired
FarmersPre-
InterventionPost-
Intervention
PercentageIncrease/
(Decrease)
Chandpur 65 31.51 177.32 462.7 62 25.23 193.07 665.2
Kishoreganj 131 553.63 566.14 2.3 22 284.14 314.44 10.7
Bogra 32 685.23 758.61 10.7 68 625.12 545.5 (12.7)
Jessore 56 253.82 222.58 (12.3) 89 337.78 132.87 (60.7)
Total 284 389.84 431.09 10.6 241 333.55 281.36 (15.6)
Current UDP Users
Mean Expenditures for FertilizerApplication (US $)
District
Numberof PairedFarmers Broadcast Area UDP Area
MeanDifference
US $
PercentageIncrease/
(Decrease)
Level ofStatistical
Significance
Rabi/Boro Season
Chandpur 3 1.70 10.40 8.70 511.8 0.05
Kishoreganj 5 5.70 8.80 3.10 54.4 NS
Bogra 4 1.60 14.70 13.10 818.8 0.1
Jessore 5 4.00 14.90 10.90 272.5 0.001
Total 17 3.50 12.30 8.80 251.4 0.001
Aman Season
Chandpur 2 1.30 11.30 10.00 769.2 0.1
Kishoreganj 2 7.90 11.40 3.50 44.3 NS
Jessore 5 3.90 14.90 11.00 282.1 0.01
Total 9 4.00 12.90 8.90 222.5 0.001
17
A similar pattern in expenditures for hired laborfor fertilizer application is evident for the Amanseason where statistically significant increases arereported in Chandpur ($10.00/ha), Jessore ($11.00/ha), and all the total sample users ($8.90/ha). Thatincrease in Kishoreganj ($3.50/ha) is not significantstatistically.
These data show the contributions of UDP inproviding employment opportunities for day wagelabor and thus alleviation of poverty. One way toview the value of aggregate expenditure here is toconvert the mean increase in aggregate expendituresfor labor ($8.80/ha) in the Rabi/Boro season toequivalent days of rice. To wit, $8.80 x 57.4 Tk =505 Tk ÷ the average retail of 1 kg of rice (12.5 Tk)= 40 kg of rice. The daily rice consumption requiredto be above the poverty level is 0.61 kg. Thus,40.0 kg of rice ÷ 0.61 = 65.6 days of food securityabove the poverty level for hired labor is attributableto the practice of UDP.
WeedingAs noted earlier, a decrease in required weeding
of UDP paddy compared with broadcast paddy is areasonable agronomic expectation. The data in Table
Table 15. A Comparison of Mean Expenditures for Hired Labor Days Per Hectare for Weeding onBroadcast and UDP Areas by Season and District
US $1 = Tk 57.40.NS: Not statistically significant at = 0.1.Only farmers who cultivated broadcast and UDP areas and employed hired labor for weeding are considered.
15 confirm that expectation and show substantialand significant decreases in mean expenditures forhired labor per weeding in the Rabi/Boro and Amanseasons in every district in the ANMAT sample.
In the Rabi/Boro season, the districts ofChandpur (–$21.60), Kishoreganj (–$11.00), and thetotal sample of users (–$11.50) reported statisticallysignificant decreases in mean expenditures forweeding. Bogra (–$4.80) and Jessore (–$3.00) alsoreported decreases in such expenditures comparedwith the broadcast paddy area, but these changes arenot statistically significant.
Mean expenditures for hired labor for weedingUDP paddy compared with broadcast paddy alsodecreased with statistical significance in Chandpur(–$18.00/ha), Kishoreganj (–$10.00/ha), and for thetotal sample of users who cultivated paddy in theAman season (–$7.20/ha). The decreases in Bogra(–$0.40/ha) and Jessore (–$1.90/ha) are notsignificant.
When compared with broadcast paddy, thesedata show that UDP farmers realize significantsaving in expenditures for weeding by hired labor-
Current UDP Users
Mean Expenditures for Weeding ( US $)
District
Number ofPaired
Farmers Broadcast Area UDP Area
MeanDifference
US $
PercentageIncrease/
(Decrease)
Level ofStatistical
Significance
Rabi/Boro Season
Chandpur 35 48.30 26.70 21.60 (44.7) 0.001
Kishoreganj 46 24.20 13.20 11.00 (45.5) 0.001
Bogra 12 36.00 31.20 4.80 (13.3) NS
Jessore 29 23.20 20.20 3.00 (12.9) NS
Total 122 32.00 20.50 11.50 (35.9) 0.001
Aman Season
Chandpur 11 40.30 22.30 18.00 (44.7) 0.01
Kishoreganj 22 22.90 12.90 10.00 (43.7) 0.001
Bogra 4 29.90 29.50 0.40 (1.3) NS
Jessore 29 26.10 24.20 1.90 (7.3) NS
Total 66 27.60 20.40 7.20 (26.1) 0.001
18
ers. This saving is an attractive feature of the UDPpractice that is a significant factor in adoption.
Housing Characteristics
Houses in rural Bangladesh are typically con-structed of straw, mud, bamboo, tin, or cement.Because the ANMAT baseline data indicated thatimproved housing was a wish of farmers, particu-larly in Jessore, the post-intervention survey in-cluded a number of questions about housingcharacteristics.
Mud HousesThe data in Table 16 show a comparison of the
mean occupancy of mud houses in the pre- and post-intervention period among users and nonusers ofUDP by district under normal circumstances. Onewould not expect digression in the “quality” ofhousing from cement to straw, but use of UDP mayprovide finances to improve housing quality. Thefrequency of straw, bamboo, and cement houses areminimal in the ANMAT sample and mud and tin aremodal types.
Among users of UDP, the frequency of mudhouses in Chandpur and Bogra remained constantduring the pre- and post-intervention period. How-ever, the occupancy of mud houses decreased on apercentage basis in Jessore (–81.4%) and for thetotal sample of users (–42.0%).
Among nonusers, the occupancy of mud housesalso decreased significantly in Bogra (–13.8%),Jessore (–37.3%), and for the total sample ofnonusers (–23.3%). An increase of 34.0% in mudhouses was reported in Chandpur.
Overall, the data in Table 16 show that users ofUDP decreased the occupancy of mud houses by–42.0% compared with –23.3% among nonusers.Therefore, UDP users realized resources to improvetheir standard of living through improved housing.
Tin HousesDuring the pre- and post-intervention period, the
data in Table 17 show that on average, users of UDPin Chandpur (9.1%), Kishoreganj (29.6%), Jessore(150.0%), and the total sample of users (22.4%)increased occupancy of tin houses. There was nochange in the mean occupancy of tin houses inBogra. The very significant change in Jessore isexplained by pervasive rebuilding, government loansof cash, and distribution of USG following floods inthe period between the ANMAT pre- and post-intervention surveys.
The mean occupancy of tin houses also in-creased significantly among nonusers of UDP inChandpur (16.9%), Kishoreganj (53.8%), and for thetotal sample of nonusers (28.0%).
Although users and nonusers of UDP increasedthe mean occupancy of tin houses during the pre-
Table 16. A Comparison of Pre- and Post-Intervention Mean Occupancy of Mud Houses by Users andNonusers of UDP by District
There are insufficient cases for analysis in Kishoreganj (2).
Current UDP Users Current UDP Nonusers
Percent Mud Houses Percent Mud Houses
District
Number ofPaired
FarmersPre-
InterventionPost-
Intervention
PercentageIncrease/
(Decrease)
Numberof PairedFarmers
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
PercentageIncrease/
(Decrease)
Chandpur 6 50 50 0.0 6 50 67 34.0
Bogra 30 87 87 0.0 62 94 81 (13.8)
Jessore 33 97 18 (81.4) 63 83 52 (37.3)
Total 69 88 51 (42.0) 131 86 66 (23.3)
19
and post-intervention period, the increases in Jessoreand Kishoreganj among users are more significantthan that among nonusers. Increases in mean occu-pancy of tin houses among total users and nonusersare significant, although the percentage increaseamong users (22.4%) is somewhat less than thatamong nonusers (28.0%).
House FlooringCement floors are preferable to mud floors in
Bangladesh. The data in Table 18 compare meanmud floors in houses of users and nonusers of UDPby district. Decreases in the frequency of mud floorsare assumed to be replaced by cement and representimprovement in housing quality.
The percentage of houses with mud floorsdecreased among UDP users in Chandpur (–2.1%),Kishoreganj (–8.8%), Bogra (–9.3%), Jessore(–8.0%), and among total users (–7.6%). However,
only the decreases in Kishoreganj and for total usersare substantial.
These data are less uniform among nonusers; asingle district, Bogra, reported a significant decreasein mean mud floors (–12.1%). Chandpur alsoreported a decrease of (–4.0%). Nonusers inKishoreganj and the total sample of nonusersreported no changes in mean mud floors.
The significant percentage increase in mudfloors among nonusers in Jessore (16.5%) is ananomaly (Table 18) especially compared with a–8.0% decrease among users in that district. Overall,users compared with nonusers significantly reducedthe mean number of houses with mud floors andvery likely replaced such floors with cement. Thepractice of UDP may have well provided resourcesfor that improvement.
Table 17. A Comparison of Pre- and Post-Intervention Mean Occupancy of Tin Houses by Users andNonusers of UDP by District
There are insufficient cases for analysis among nonusers in Jessore (3).
Table 18. A Comparison of Pre- and Post-Intervention Mean Mud Floors in Houses Among Users andNonusers of UDP by District
Current UDP Users Current UDP Nonusers
Percent Tin Houses Percent Tin Houses
District
Numberof PairedFarmers
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
PercentageIncrease/
(Decrease)
Numberof PairedFarmers
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
PercentageIncrease/
(Decrease)
Chandpur 74 88 96 9.1 76 83 97 16.9
Kishoreganj 121 71 92 29.6 20 65 100 53.8
Bogra 6 67 67 0.0 8 25 75 200.0
Jessore 5 40 100 150.0
Total 206 76 93 22.4 104 75 96 28.0
Current UDP Users Current UDP Nonusers
Percent Mud Floors Percent Mud FloorsNumberof PairedFarmers
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
PercentageIncrease/
(Decrease)
Numberof PairedFarmers
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
PercentageIncrease/
(Decrease)
Chandpur 72 94 92 (2.1) 78 99 95 (4.0)
Kishoreganj 117 91 83 (8.8) 22 95 95 0.0
Bogra 32 97 88 (9.3) 67 99 87 (12.1)
Jessore 46 87 80 (8.0) 84 79 92 16.5
Total 267 92 85 (7.6) 251 92 92 0.0
20
Qualitative Benefits of UDP Use
The sample of 295 UDP users was asked to stateone to three benefits of that practice and each userexpressed at least one. The data in Table 19 showthat the sample UDP users expressed 29 types ofbenefits, an average of 1.8. The relative ranksof each benefit are shown in bold numbers bydistrict and for the total sample of users.
For the total sample, increased rice storage, thusfood security, represented the greatest percentage ofall 542 benefits expressed (16.2%), followed bypayment of educational expenses (12.9%), improvedhousing (11.8%), improved finances (10.0%),purchased animals (8.5%), purchased agriculturalequipment (6.5%), purchased new clothing (5.9%),started or improved small business (4.1%), pur-chased household appliances (3.3%), improvedhousehold furnishings (3.0%), and installation of atube well (3.0%). These benefits, ranked 1–10 inTable 19, represent 85.0% of all qualitative benefitsexpressed by UDP users in the post-interventionperiod.
The modal benefit reported in Chandpur is an“improved house” (19.5%). Such improvements aremost often floors, roofs, or earthen barriers for highwater. The modal benefit in Kishoreganj is increasedrice storage (24.8%). Rice storage means “foodsecurity” and was often expressed as “improveddiet.” Such storage also means having to purchaseless rice and thus makes limited cash available forother purchases and living expenses. The sample inBogra expressed most frequently the purchase ofhousehold appliances as a benefit of the UDPpractice. Such appliances include radios, electricfans, lanterns, rice cookers, sewing machines, and,least often, a television. In Jessore new clothing wasthe modal reported benefit (16.0%). Perhaps cloth-ing was lost or destroyed by the flood in the areathat occurred between the pre- and post-interventionperiod.
References
1. Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council.1985. “Fertilizer Deep Placement for Rice,”Proceedings of the Technical Sessions, July 8–9,Dhaka, Bangladesh.
2. Fertiliser Association of India. 1986. “Growthand Modernization in the Fertilizer Industry,” INProceedings of the FAI Seminar, Part 1, NewDelhi, India, December 15–17.
3. Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations. 1984. “Maximizing Fertilizer UseEfficiency,” Food and Plant Nutrition Bulletin,No. 6, FAO, Rome, Italy.
4. International Rice Research Institute. 1990. TheInternational Rice Research Institute 1989:Planning for the 1990s, Manila, Philippines.
5. Kumar, V., and W. S. Guleria (Eds.). 1983.“Urea Supergranules,” IN Proceedings of theSeminar-Cum-Workshop on UreaSupergranules, Indian Farmers Fertilizer Coop-erative Ltd., pp. 1–115.
6. Savant, N. K., and P. J. Stangel. 1990. “DeepPlacement of Urea Supergranules in Trans-planted Rice: Principles and Practices,” Fertil-izer Research, 25(1):183.
7. Tandon, H.L.S. 1989. “Nitrogen Recommenda-tions for Higher Fertilizer Efficiency,” FertilizerNews, 34(12):63–71.
8. Thompson, T. P. 1992. “Sociological Dimen-sions of Technology for Rice Production inBangladesh,” Journal of Rural Development,22(1):1–28.
9. Thompson, T. P. 2000. “A SocioeconomicSurvey of Urea Supergranule Use in South Asia:The Case of Bangladesh,” paper submitted tothe International Fund for Agricultural Develop-ment. IFDC, Muscle Shoals, Alabama, U.S.A.
10. Thompson, T. P. 2001. “Agricultural and Socio-economic Indicators: A Baseline Survey in FourDistricts of Bangladesh Prior to the Introductionof Urea Deep Placement,” paper submitted tothe International Fund for Agricultural Develop-ment. IFDC, Muscle Shoals, Alabama, U.S.A.
21
Tabl
e 19
. Qua
litat
ive
Ben
efits
of U
DP
Rep
orte
d by
Use
rs b
y D
istr
ict a
nd R
ank
Dis
tric
t
Ch
and
pu
rK
ish
ore
gan
jB
og
raJe
sso
reTo
tal
Ben
efit
a
Nu
mb
ero
fR
esp
on
ses
Per
cen
tR
ank
Nu
mb
ero
fR
esp
on
ses
Per
cen
tR
ank
Nu
mb
ero
fR
esp
on
ses
Per
cen
tR
ank
Nu
mb
ero
fR
esp
on
ses
Per
cen
tR
ank
Nu
mb
ero
fR
esp
on
ses
Per
cen
tR
ank
Incr
ease
dri
cest
ora
ge
29
15
.73
41
24
.81
12
.11
01
711
.84
88
16
.21
Pai
ded
uca
tio
nal
exp
ense
s3
21
7.3
21
27
.35
61
2.5
22
01
3.9
27
01
2.9
2
Imp
rov
edh
ou
se3
61
9.5
19
5.5
61
2.1
10
18
12
.53
64
11.8
3
Imp
rov
edfi
nan
cial
con
dit
ion
16
8.6
42
41
4.5
35
10
.44
96.3
75
41
0.0
4
Pu
rch
ased
anim
als
73
.88
27
16
.42
24
.27
10
6.9
64
68
.55
Purc
has
edag
ricu
ltura
leq
uip
men
t14
7.6
56
3.6
82
4.2
71
39
.05
35
6.5
6
Pu
rch
ased
new
clo
thin
g0
0.0
19
84
.87
12
.11
02
31
6.0
13
25
.97
Sta
rted
or
imp
rov
eda
smal
lb
usi
nes
s7
3.8
84
2.4
10
61
2.5
25
3.5
10
22
4.1
8
Pu
rch
ased
ho
use
ho
ldap
pli
ance
s2
1.1
14
10
.61
57
14
.61
85.6
81
83
.39
Imp
rov
edh
ou
seh
old
furn
ish
ing
s11
5.9
62
1.2
13
24
.27
10
.71
51
63
.01
0
Inst
alle
da
tub
ew
ell
00
.01
91
37
.94
00
.02
23
2.1
12
16
3.0
10
Pu
rch
ased
fow
l8
4.3
70
0.0
21
00
.02
27
4.9
91
52
.81
2
Ren
ted
-in
add
itio
nal
lan
d2
1.1
14
10
.61
53
6.3
54
2.8
111
01
.81
3
Co
nst
ruct
edla
trin
e3
1.6
12
53
.09
12
.11
00
0.0
16
91
.71
4
Imp
rov
edtr
ansp
ort
atio
n0
0.0
19
31
.811
36
.35
32
.11
29
1.7
14
Pu
rch
ased
med
icat
ion
42
.211
00
.02
10
0.0
22
32
.11
27
1.3
16
Inv
este
din
fish
cult
ivat
ion
63
.21
00
0.0
21
12
.11
00
0.0
16
71
.31
6
Inv
estm
ent
inag
ricu
ltu
ral
inp
uts
21
.11
43
1.8
111
2.1
10
00
.01
66
1.1
18
Pu
rch
ased
ati
mb
ertr
ee2
1.1
14
10
.61
50
0.0
22
00
.01
63
0.6
19
Rep
aire
dag
ricu
ltu
ral
equ
ipm
ent
31
.61
20
0.0
21
00
.02
20
0.0
16
30
.61
9
Imp
rov
edan
imal
hu
sban
dry
00
.01
92
1.2
13
00
.02
20
0.0
16
20
.42
1
Est
abli
shed
ap
on
d0
0.0
19
10
.61
51
2.1
10
00
.01
62
0.4
21
Pu
rch
ased
add
itio
nal
agri
cult
ure
lan
d0
0.0
19
10
.61
51
2.1
10
00
.01
62
0.4
21
Bu
ilt
an
ewh
ou
se0
0.0
19
00
.02
11
2.1
10
00
.01
61
0.2
24
Pai
dfo
rm
arri
age
00
.01
91
0.6
15
00
.02
20
0.0
16
10
.22
4
Incr
ease
dp
add
ysa
les
00
.01
90
0.0
21
12
.11
00
0.0
16
10
.22
4
Pu
rch
ased
wat
ch0
0.0
19
00
.02
11
2.1
10
00
.01
61
0.2
24
Pu
rch
ased
anir
rig
atio
np
um
p0
0.0
19
00
.02
11
2.1
10
00
.01
61
0.2
24
Pu
rch
ased
wo
od
fuel
10
.51
80
0.0
21
00
.02
20
0.0
16
10
.22
4
To
tal
Res
po
nse
s1
85
10
0.0
16
51
00
.04
81
00
.01
44
10
0.0
54
21
00
.0
a. F
arm
ers e
xpre
ssed
one
to th
ree
bene
fits.
22
Paper Series IFDC—P-38August 20075C
IFDCP.O. Box 2040Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35662 (U.S.A.) ISBN-13: 978-0-88090-160-4
