Improved Technologies for Chili Cultivation in Central Java, Indonesia: Impacts, Farmers’ Perception, and Socioeconomic Assessments

Keywords: chili farming, improved technologies, socioeconomic impacts, farmers’ perception, Central Java, Indonesia.

AbstractChili (Capsicum annuum) is one of the important vegetable cash crops in

Indonesia. This study evaluates immediate implications of adoption of improved technological packages introduced in Magelang, Brebes and Rembang, three chili production regions in Central Java, Indonesia. Distinct cultivation practices are followed in each region, resulting from largely different soil types and water control measures. Current chili farming practices tend to be not sustainable because of high levels of agrochemical use. In Magelang, a package of technologies consisting of border plantings of Crotalaria spp. and use of botanical pesticides was targeted for reducing incidence of whitefly-transmitted geminiviruses. In Brebes, a package of technologies consisting of compost, rice straw mulch, and biopesticides was targeted to address soil- and water-borne diseases such as Phytophthora blight. In Rembang, a low cost drip irrigation set was targeted to cope with increasing water scarcity. We analyzed farmers’ perceptions and perspectives on short-term impacts of the technologies. The majority of surveyed farmers had positive responses to the technologies. After using the technologies, farmers were able to reduce synthetic pesticides by around 10-20%. In Brebes, the mulch technology package was able to substitute 20% of inorganic fertilizers with compost. In Rembang, after using the low-cost drip irrigation, water and related energy cost of irrigation were reduced by more than 30%. Using these technologies, chili productivity increased by 15% in Magelang and 20% in Brebes, and most importantly, the overall economic return in all regions increased by around 15-20%. Given the interest of farmers and favorable short-term impacts, potential exists for wide adoption of these technologies in Indonesia, if they are disseminated in partnership with local extension agencies and take into account location-specific production constraints.

INTRODUCTION

Chili (Capsicum spp.) is grown throughout Indonesia. This study evaluates farmers’ perceptions toward usefulness and implications of adoption of three technology packages introduced at project sites in Central Java, Indonesia during 2008-10. Chili is an important component in the cropping system of tropical Asia. In terms of crop acreage, it ranks as first most important vegetable in Asia and the third most important vegetable

1

J. Mariyono AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center, Project Office, Indonesia

M. Bhattarai Agricultural Economist, AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center, Taiwan

R. Suherman Indonesian Vegetable Research Institute, Lembang, Bandung, Indonesia

globally (Ali 2006). In Indonesia, chili provides the greatest market share in terms of value of vegetables traded (Vos and Duriat 1995). In 2007, chili was cultivated on more than 190,000 ha in Indonesia with production of about one million t, which was about 3% of the annual global supply of chili in that year (FAOSTAT 2010). In 2007, chili was cultivated on more than 18,000 ha in Central Java, which was 20% of total national chili acreage. More than 50% of the chili acreage in Central Java in 2008 was in the three districts where the field survey was carried out (Mariyono and Bhattarai 2009).

Compared with other countries in Asia, Indonesia’s chili productivity is low. (Mustafa et al. 2006). Factors behind the low productivity are use of poor crop management technologies, widespread use of low-quality seed, high incidence of pest and disease attacks, inadequate marketing infrastructure, inadequate extension support at local level, inadequate irrigation infrastructure, and lack of use of integrated technology packages (Vos 1994; Basuki et al. 2009; Mariyono and Bhattarai 2009).

Chili cultivation practices in many parts of Indonesia tend to be unsustainable because of high levels of agrochemical use. A recent survey indicated that the level of synthetic pesticides used on chili in Central Java, on average, ranged from 10 to 20 kg formulation per hectare per crop season of four months. Farmers who cultivated local varieties of chili applied double the amount of pesticides, and applied more frequently, than those who cultivated hybrids or improved varieties. Likewise, the level of inorganic fertilizer use on chili, on average, was 850 kg per hectare in the three surveyed sites (Mariyono and Bhattarai 2009).

To improve chili productivity and sustainability, the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) Project HORT/2004/048 introduced chili production technologies to three districts/communities of Central Java from 2008 to 2010. Each community had location-specific constraints in chili cultivation; hence, a separate technology package was introduced to each site:

Crop barriers were introduced in Magelang to reduce the infestation of whitefly-transmitted geminiviruses (WTG). Two border crops, maize and Crotalaria, were combined with biopesticides and selective synthetic pesticides. This was introduced in Magelang, where WTGs are widespread and lead to severe crop losses.

Rice-straw mulch combined with “compost tea” and botanical pesticides was introduced in Brebes to reduce the infestation of soil- and water-borne diseases (e.g., bacterial wilt and Phytophthora blight) were introduced in Brebes. Chili farming in Brebes is practiced under surjan—a traditional farming system in which vegetables are cultivated on ridges and rice is cultivated in furrows; the furrow also serves as drainage for excess floodwater as well as for irrigation purposes during the dry period.

Low-cost drip irrigation system was introduced in Rembang, where chili is cultivated with low inputs, to deal with water shortages. Access to water is a critical problem for growing chili in Indonesia, especially during the dry seasons.

These technologies were introduced to selected farmers who were innovators in each village. During the chili cropping season these farmers were actively involved in conducting field trials and applying the technology packages, guided by a team of researchers. After the field trials, some of the innovative farmers also applied and assessed the technologies on their own land. The main purpose of this paper is to document perceptions and perspectives of farmers (technology users and primary beneficiaries) towards the technology packages tested in the surveyed communities. This information will be useful for designing effective adoption and dissemination packages. Details on the technologies and project activities in Central Java are in Gniffke (2011).

2

MATERIALS AND METHODSThe surveyed farmers were engaged in on-farm trials and in technology adaptation

and demonstration activities; they tended to be more knowledgeable about vegetable farming than other farmers in their communities. We refer to them as “farmer cooperators” or innovators and early adopters of farm technologies (Rogers 1995). If farmer cooperators are convinced, it is then more likely that they would persuade other farmers to try the technologies (Feder and Savastano 2006). Farmer cooperators and early adopters were the focus of this study. The impacts in this study are immediate or short-term impacts, as perceived by the technology users or farmer beneficiaries immediately after adoption of the technologies. An analysis of the long-term impact of the technology on farmers’ livelihoods is outside the scope of this paper, as the technology is only at early stage of adoption and dissemination (within 1-2 years of release).

Data Collection The field survey was carried out in three districts: Magelang, Brebes and

Rembang. Data were collected from all of the farmers who were involved in on-farm research trials of the technologies, thus it was a full sample survey. Using a semi-structured questionnaire, we collected information from 14 farmers in Magelang on adapting crop barrier on chili, and four farmers from Brebes who had used rice-straw mulch on chili in the recent past1. In Rembang, using a checklist, data were collected from a focus group discussion with eight farmers (the farmer cooperator and seven neighbor farmers who closely observed the research trial)2. The purpose of the study was clearly explained to the farmers before individual interviews and group discussion. Points were illustrated when farmers were confused about certain issues/questions.

The farmers’ perceptions and perspectives towards the technologies were analyzed and documented by combining information from a farmers’ group discussion (for low-cost drip irrigation) with that of data from individual farmers’ survey (in case of crop barrier technology and rice-straw mulch). Because of the small number of farmer cooperators involved in use of the technologies, there was an advantage in combining data from quantitative and qualitative surveys (Mancini and Jiggins 2008). In Magelang and Brebes, we collected information from all participating farmers who had previously used the technology; in Rembang, we also compiled information from neighbor farmers who had closely observed the performance of the drip irrigation technology.

Data AnalysisWe compared and contrasted key impact-related indicators of the new technology

packages with the existing practices. It is not appropriate to compare and contrast across technologies because of the different nature, characteristics, purpose, and target areas of each package. These technology packages were introduced only to a limited number of farmers, largely farmer cooperators. Therefore, in addition to quantitative assessment, a descriptive analysis was carried out to explore socioeconomic constraints and opportunities for adoption of the packages by farmers.

1 In Magelang, 20 farmers were involved in on-farm trials, but during the field survey time, we could reach only 14 farmers; remaining six farmers were traveling at that time and could not be reached in person. In Brebes, four farmers were involved in on-farm trials, and we surveyed all of them. 2 On-farm research trial of low-cost drip irrigation technology was carried out at a farmer’s plot in Rembang. To minimize the farmer’s personal bias, we included neighboring farmers in the focus group discussions.

3

We analyzed selected characteristics of the packages that would persuade an individual’s decision to adopt or reject the package (Rogers 1995). Characteristics included in the survey are: a) Relative advantage: it reflects how much the new technology is improved over the previous generation of technology or the existing practice. b) Compatibility: the level of compatibility an innovation must have to be assimilated into an individual local farming context. c) Complexity: how easy or difficult it is to use an innovation, and whether or not it is likely to be adopted by an individual. If an innovation is too difficult to apply, then it is likely that the farming community will not adopt it. d) Trialability: reflects how easily an innovation may be experimented with as it is being adopted and modified. e) Observability: the degree that an innovation is visible to others. A more visible innovation (such as a new crop type or a hard technology) will facilitate better communication among the farmers in a community, and will disseminate the innovation in a short time, or be abandoned it if not performing well (Rogers 1995).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Economic Advantage of TechnologyThe scale of socioeconomic benefits generated by a new technology, as well as

selected sets of characteristics of the technology and their compatibility with the local farming situation, will determine its relative advantage over already practiced technologies. In this case, we selected several factors representing relative advantage of the technology, such as reductions in use of synthetic pesticide; reduction in level of use of inorganic fertilizers and other resources such as labor and water for irrigation; increases in level of productivity; and increased monetary profits from use of the technology package. The farmers reported that all three sets of new technologies have a potential relative advantage in terms of reduction in use of synthetic pesticides (Fig. 1). The crop barrier technology in Magelang was able to reduce total use of synthetic pesticides on chili by almost 20%, and the frequency of pesticide spray was reduced by more than 30% in a crop season. The crop barrier is used to protect the crop from whitefly infestations, and hence only the use of insecticide is supposed to be reduced by the crop barrier, not the use of fungicides.

With respect to rice-straw mulch and drip irrigation, the farmers perceived only 10% reduction in use of synthetic pesticides. Unlike the crop barrier in Magelang, rice-straw mulch in Brebes was not directly targeted to control diseases, but to enhance sustainability of production through improving soil fertility. Farmers in Brebes perceived that rice-straw mulch was not meant for disease control. Likewise, drip irrigation in Rembang was set up largely to manage water scarcity, but not for insect pest control.

Farmers in Brebes believed that rice-straw mulch was able to reduce the use of inorganic fertilizers by 20% (Fig. 2). Farmers also believed that rice-straw helped to improve microclimate conditions and added organic matter to the soil, and in the long run would improve soil fertility. Crop barrier and drip irrigation had no effect on the use of inorganic fertilizers; this is logical, as these methods were not targeted to reduce fertilizers use, but to control diseases and facilitate irrigation, respectively.

The crop barrier and mulch technology packages led to increased labor days on chili by 4% and 10%, respectively (Fig. 3). In Rembang, drip irrigation was able to reduce total labor days on chili by 25%. In addition, farmers also experienced a net saving on water and electricity (cost), and greater convenience in watering crops.

4

Although analysis of long-term benefits of the technologies is outside the scope of this paper, some long-term effects are worthy of note: over time, the reduction on use of agrochemicals and water would also lead to improvement in the sustainability of chili production. A reduction in the use of agrochemicals would benefit the health of the community and reduce pressure on the local agroecosystem. During the dry season, water is already scarce for farming in Rembang; farmers have to pump groundwater. Adoption of drip irrigation would help protect groundwater from overexploitation, save on irrigation costs, and reduce use of other scarce resources.

Crop barrier and rice-straw mulch enhanced productivity of chili by around 15% and 20% in Magelang and Brebes, respectively (Fig. 4). The crop productivity increased in Magelang due to some delay in virus infection under the barrier crop, which led to higher fruit set and a longer harvesting period compared with chili grown without a barrier crop. In Brebes, increased crop productivity was due to lower level of weed infestations and higher fruit set under rice-straw mulch.

Any change in overall farm profitability, including use of all component resources, is an important factor for farmers’ decision to adopt or reject a new technology. Farm profitability of chili increased by 22%, 20%, and 15%, under rice-straw mulch, crop barrier, and drip irrigation technology, respectively (Fig. 5). These technologies led to longer harvesting periods, higher fruit set per plant, and better quality and size of fruit at each harvest; all of them led to higher productivity and returns to farmers. The chili yield in Rembang did not increase under drip irrigation, but farmers were able to reduce irrigation costs by 25%, saving on labor and electricity to operate the pump, and in turn improving profitability. Irrigation was more convenient under drip sets than with hand irrigation with hosepipes, the common practice in Rembang. Extra income from selling produce from the border crop was another source of profit for farmers in Magelang.

Prospect of AdoptionAlmost 85% of farmers surveyed who were directly exposed to new technologies

revealed their strong interest in using the technology in the future; the remaining farmers were doubtful, but they did not reject the technologies (Fig. 6). Farmers who were doubtful might appreciate the technologies given time and more experience in using them.

About 80% of farmers surveyed actually used the technologies on their fields. Some farmers used the technologies individually, and others shared the technologies with neighbor farmers (Fig. 7). About 20% of surveyed farmers who had not tried the technologies noted they would like to use the technologies in the following crop season, but on a small plot.

The level of compatibility of the new technology in the local context was relatively high, which suggests that the technology can be assimilated easily into a local farming context (Fig. 8). Around 10% of the surveyed farmers stated that the new technologies might conflict with local cropping practices (particularly unproductive border crops, which may not be suitable for farmers who do not grow chili on their own land) if the technologies did not address the farmers’ primary concern—controlling whitefly-transmitted geminivirus. For example, when the Crotalaria border crop was introduced to a farming community in Magelang, where whiteflies were not the main concern on chili, farmers did not like the border crop at all. Furthermore, the benefit of Crotalaria in improving soil fertility will be revealed only over the time; hence, farmers who are renting land would be less likely to reap some of the long-term benefits of the technologies. One reason farmers stated that the new technologies were not compatible

5

was that technology components were not available in the local market. For example, the main drip irrigation components were not available in Rembang or in nearby markets.

To sum up, the surveyed farmers (largely farmer cooperators) reported that the new technologies were easily communicable and transferable to other farmers in the community, were easily observable (effects were visible), and were acceptable. The three technologies were simple in design, and have the potential to address farmers’ immediate concerns at the respective sites. The input components for crop barrier and mulch technologies were locally available, except in the case of drip irrigation.

CONCLUSION Three technological packages were introduced in three different sites, and every

site had a location-specific problem. The technologies were introduced to farmers through collaborative field trials with support from a team of project researchers and local extension staff. The study analyzed farmers’ evaluation of immediate impacts of the technology packages and their experiences and perceptions in adapting the technologies.

Synthetic pesticides and inorganic fertilizers were substituted in part with organic-based materials, which could lead to enhanced sustainability of chili cultivation. These technologies increased farm profitability at all sites. The level of compatibility of the introduced technologies was relatively high, and the technologies did not conflict with community norms and local farming practices. Farmers were familiar with the technologies and they did not have any major difficulty using the technologies. The new technologies were visible to other farmers (even non-users) in the community.

All three technology packages have the potential to address farmers’ immediate concerns. Considering the positive response of surveyed farmers, there is considerable scope for wide dissemination of the technologies in Central Java in the future.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the farmers who generously gave their time to provide detailed information for the analysis. We also appreciate the valuable input of Anna Dibiyantoro, project site coordinator in Indonesia; Paul Gniffke, AVRDC pepper breeder; and feedback from other AVRDC reviewers on the first draft of this paper. We thank the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) for the grant support to AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center and its consortium of partners to implement the chili project in Central Java, Indonesia (ACIAR Project HORT/2004/048).

Literature Cited Basuki, R.S., Adiyoga W. and Gunadi, N. 2009. Impact of Improved Vegetable Farming

technology on farmers’ livelihoods in Indonesia. Acta Hort. 809.Feder, G. and Savastano, N. 2006. The role of opinion leaders in the diffusion of new

knowledge: the casa of integrated pest management. World Development 34:1287-1300.

Feder, G., Murgai, R, and Quizon, J.B. 2004. Sending farmers back to schools: the impact of farmer field school in Indonesia. Rev. Agric. Econ. 26: 45-62.

Gniffke P. 2011. Integrated Disease Management for Anthracnose, Phytophthora blight, and Whitefly-transmitted Geminivirus in Chili Pepper in Indonesia. Project final report (unpublished). AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center, Shanhua, Taiwan.

6

Mancini, F. and Jiggins, J. 2008. Appraisal of methods to evaluate farmer field schools. Development in Practice 18: 539-550.

Mariyono, J. and Bhattarai, M. 2009. Chili production practices in Central Java, Indonesia: a baseline report. AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center, Taiwan.

Mustafa, U., Ali, M. and Kuswanti, H. 2006. Indonesia. In Ali, M. (ed.) Chilli (Capsicum spp.) Food Chain Analysis: Setting Research Priorities in Asia. Shanhua, Taiwan: AVRDC–The World Vegetable Center, Technical Bulletin No. 38, AVRDC Publication 06-678. 253 pp.

Rogers, E.M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. (5th edison). Glencoe: Free Press, USA. Vos, J.G.M. 1994. Integrated crop management of hot pepper (Capsicum spp.) in tropical

lowlands. Ph.D. thesis. Wageningen Agricultural University, the Netherlands. Vos, J.G.M. and Duriat, A.S. 1995. Hot pepper (Capsicum spp.) production on Java,

Indonesia: toward integrated crop management. Crop Protection 14: 205-213.

Table 1

Figures

7

8