Adoption and Spatial Diversity of Later Generation Modern Rice

Varieties in the Philippines

C. C. Launio,* G. O. Redondo, J. C. Beltran, and Y. Morooka

ABSTRACT
Not much information has been publicly available on the diff usion of modern varieties (MVs) from the 1990s and on current
diversity of rice (Oryza sativa L.) varieties in farmer fields. Using national household surveys of Philippine growers conducted in
1993, 1997, and 2002, this study describes the adoption of specific MVs and variety groups in farmer fields; measures the adop-
Rice

tion rates of newly released varieties; and analyzes the spatial diversity of varieties planted in farmer fields. Data showed that
IR64, IR74, IR42, and Burdagol are enduring varieties from 1970s and 1980s, and PSB Rc18, PSB Rc10, PSB Rc28, Masipag,
PSB Rc14, and PSB Rc82 are the most commonly planted new varieties. The MV3 varieties (released mid-1980s to mid-1990s)
were popularly planted with an observed decrease in the use of MV2s (released mid-1970s to mid-1980s) and increase in the use
of MV4s (released after 1995). Around 30 to 40% of the total rice area is planted to new rice varieties and the aggregate replace-
ment period of rice varieties is around 8 to 11 yr, with faster adoption rates during dry season (DS) in irrigated areas. On average,
only 10 varieties occupy around 70% of the rice area in major rice-producing provinces in one season. Indices of spatial diversity
show wide variability across provinces in terms of the richness of diversity, dominance of specific varieties, and the equality of
abundance, but no clear trend across periods. Policymakers are thus encouraged to continually support and strengthen the cur-
rent efforts of public rice breeding research and extension, even as research beyond analysis of on-farm morphological diversity
is recommended.

T he improvement in crop productivity, particu-

larly for rice and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), based on
a new plant type, characterized as shorter, earlier maturing,
with less photoperiod sensitivity, than traditional tropical and
subtropical varieties became popularized as the foundation
for the Green Revolution in developing countries (Evenson,
2002). Several studies have documented the rapid adoption of
rice high-yielding varieties over the period from 1968 to the
1980s (Herdt and Capule, 1983; Dalrymple, 1986; Barker et
al., 1985; David et al., 1994; Francisco, 1997). Not much data,
however, have been publicly available on more recent time peri-
ods, especially about the diff usion adoption of new rice variet-
ies from the 1990s. This is important especially since two major
acts that impacted agriculture in the Philippines were enacted
after 1990, namely: the Local Government Code in 1992 and
Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act in 1998, both
of which may have influenced variety adoption and spatial
diversification. Recent study by Estudillo and Otsuka (2006)
assessed the changing contributions of successive generations of
MVs of rice to yield increase and stability and changes in total
C.C. Launio and Y. Morooka, Graduate School of Kuroshio Science,
Kochi Univ., Monobe Otsu 200 Nankoku city, Kochi, 783-0093 Japan;
G.O. Redondo and J.C. Beltran, Philippine Rice Res. Inst., Maligaya, Science
City of Muñoz, 3119 Nueva Ecija, the Philippines. Received 4 Sept. 2007.
*Corresponding author (ccasiwan@yahoo.com).
Published in Agron. J. 100:1380–1389 (2008).
doi:10.2134/agronj2007.0297
Copyright © 2008 by the American Society of Agronomy,
677 South Segoe Road, Madison, WI 53711. All rights
reserved. No part of this periodical may be reproduced
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic
or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or
any information storage and retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publisher.
factor productivity (TFP) in the Philippines, but this study
used adoption data only from Central Luzon, Philippines, and
secondary data in which the use of specific MVs cannot be
distinguished.
A more detailed understanding of the development and adop-
tion trends of MVs in farmer fields is important because it relates
to the impact of public plant breeding research. As Evenson and
Gollin (2003) observed, varietal releases are not necessarily a
good measure of the success of research; a better measure is the
use of these varieties in farmers’ fields. With more than 80% of
the country’s rice area planted to modern rice varieties since the
early 1980s, it is useful to have an updated measure of the adop-
tion rate of varieties developed in the 1990s, and to what extent
farmers use these varieties compared with the early modern vari-
eties. Measuring the adoption rate of new varieties indicates the
impact of the breeding program that continues to develop and
release new varieties. Brennan and Byerlee (1991) indicated that
“for a given rate of variety release, a rapid rate of variety replace-
ment in farmers’ fields leads to higher returns to public plant
breeding research because the lag between variety release and
adoption by farmers is reduced.”
Furthermore, understanding the adoption of rice varieties
provides an indication of the sustainability of the rice produc-
tion growth in the future. Aside from the objective of increas-
ing productivity, plant breeders justify the continuous breeding
and release of varieties as a means to promote genetic diversi-
fication. Genetic diversity is known to substantially reduce a
crop’s vulnerability to diseases. Understanding the variety dis-
Abbreviations: DS, dry season; FS, foundation seeds; IRR, irrigated; IRRI,
International Rice Research Institute; MVs, modern varieties; NSIC, National
Seed Industry Council; PhilRice, Philippine Rice Research Institute; RBFHS,
rice-based farm household survey; RF, rainfed; TFP, total factor productivity;
TV, traditional varieties; WS, wet season.

1380 A g r o n o my J o u r n a l • Vo l u m e 10 0 , I s s u e 5 • 2008
persal in the major rice-producing regions of the country would
indicate to some extent the genetic diversity of the rice crop
being planted in the country. Finally, information on rice vari-
ety diff usion by province, season, and ecosystem can provide
basis for decision making of researchers, extension workers and
local policymakers in their research and development activities,
particularly in location-specific variety development, seed pro-
duction, and targeted variety promotion programs.
The major players in rice breeding research in the Philippines
are the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI),
Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice), Bureau of Plant
Industry (BPI), University of the Philippines at Los Baños
(UPLB), and recently, some private seed companies. These
institutions develop and submit promising lines to the Rice
Varietal Improvement Group (RVIG), a multi-disciplinary,
multi-agency body that tests, evaluates, and recommends to the
National Seed Industry Council (NSIC) varieties for release
either as a commercial variety for all regions of the country or
for specific regions or sites. Upon approval of release, breed-
ing or host institutions submit breeder seeds to PhilRice and
its network for the production of the foundation seeds (FS)
of these released varieties. The FS are distributed to the seed
production network (SeedNet), which produces the registered
seeds and sell to other seed growers who then produce the certi-
fied seeds released to farmers. Since 1968, 138 varieties have been
released, of those, 92 for irrigated, 19 for rainfed, 13 for upland,
6 for cool-elevated, and 8 for saline-prone rice areas (Padolina,
1995; PhilRice, 1998, 2007). About 70% were developed for the
irrigated lowland rice ecosystem (including hybrid rice varieties),
generally for transplanted rice. The NSIC released an average of
around four varieties every year since 1968 (Fig. 1).
Most rice varieties were originally released for irrigated
lowland, rainfed-lowland, and upland ecosystems, until after
1990 when IRRI and PhilRice began breeding rice varieties
specifically for cool elevated, saline-prone, and transplanted
and direct-seeded rainfed-lowland. The early varieties released
were bred with the objective of creating a plant type that would
be resistant to lodging and would make efficient use of solar
energy and fertilizer to achieve high yields (Barker et al., 1985).
Later, breeders incorporated in their variety development char-
acteristics such as resistance to pests and diseases and improved
grain quality. Much later, breeders bred specifically for some
adverse environments such as the cool-elevated area and the
saline-prone environments. The first varieties for
cool-elevation and saline-prone areas were released
by 1995. Although breeding for hybrid rice started
much earlier and the first hybrid rice was released
in 1994, and then followed by the PSB Rc72H
(Mestizo) in 1997, most of the hybrid rice varieties
were commercially released after 2002, which was
after the national program for hybrid rice commer-
cialization was launched in 2001.
This study was conducted to analyze the adoption
of these officially released rice varieties in farmers’
fields using national rice farm household surveys
conducted in 1993, 1997, and 2002. The specific
objectives of the study were to: (i) describe the
recent diffusion adoption of specific rice varieties
in farmer fields, and compare the adoption rate by Fig. 1. Yearly release of rice varieties in the Philippines (1968–2006).
Agronomy Journal • Volume 100, Issue 5 • 2008
variety groups; (ii) measure adoption rates of newly released vari-
eties; (iii) analyze the spatial diversification of varieties planted
in farmers’ fields using both actual spatial data tabulation and
spatial diversity indices; and (iv) draw policy recommendations
from the results of the study.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data Set
The study used data from the rice-based farm house-
hold survey (RBFHS) being conducted every 5 yr by the
Socioeconomics Division (SED) of PhilRice. To our knowl-
edge, this is the most useful source of information on specific
variety-use represented by the most number of rice-producing
provinces in the Philippines. The Bureau of Agricultural
Statistics (BAS) conducts a regular quarterly survey on rice
production for all provinces but they are only able to classify
area harvested to MVs and traditional varieties (TVs), and
very recently, hybrid rice varieties. Thus, despite the drawbacks
on the RBFHS data set as will be mentioned later, this study
used the RBFHS cross-section data sets covering 1992–1993,
1996–1997 and 2001–2002 crop years, with a quick reference
to some reports of the earliest 1988 survey in several regions.
The RBFHS in 1992–1993 covered 15 major rice-producing
provinces with 1100 respondents sampled purposively. The
total of the rice areas in these major rice-producing provinces
comprise around 50% of the country’s total rice area harvested.
On the other hand, the 1996–1997 and 2001–2002 surveys
covered 30 and 33 provinces with 2239 and 2474 respondents,
respectively. The sum of the rice areas represented by the prov-
inces covered in the 1996–1997 and 2001–2002 surveys are
around 70% of the country’s total rice area (Fig. 2). In the 1997
and 2002 surveys, the province served as domain of the study
and all barangays (villages) in the province served as sampling
population. This study used a two-stage sampling selection.
The first stage is the barangay (equivalent of a village), selected
by using systematic random sampling, and the second stage
unit is the rice farm household, selected using the right cover-
age method (PhilRice, 1997). This method is used in ensur-
ing random sampling even without the list of farmers in the
barangay. A data collector starts from a designated landmark
(for e.g., barangay hall, church, or school) and interviews a
qualified respondent every three houses from the landmark.
The data collector always moves in the right direction until he
1381
 One disadvantage of these data is that it was based on farmer
interviews and thus, the accuracy of information is dependent
on how well the farmers were able to identify varieties correctly
or recall the varieties they planted. It is possible that farmers
confuse variety names, especially given the changes in nam-
ing schemes of rice varieties, for example an earlier variety BPI
Ri10 can be confused with a newer variety named PSB Rc10, or
IR64 and PSB Rc64. Several variety names mentioned by farm-
ers are also not in the list of officially released varieties because
either they are local names given by farmers or these are only
selection lines named by farmers. For this study, unclear farm-
ers’ responses were verified with the list of official varieties
and the source of seeds they mentioned; name of varieties not
in the list were recorded as is. Also, the data were gathered in
major irrigated and rainfed lowland rice-growing areas thus
the variety monitoring may not have captured condition in the
upland areas and in other provinces with very small rice areas.
All the conclusions in this report are then true generally for the
irrigated and rainfed-lowland ecosystems in major rice-growing
provinces in the country.

Data Analyses
The study approached adoption and diversification analy-
sis descriptively since it is simple to execute while giving a
clear picture particularly on specific varieties. Percentage
distribution of respondents by specific variety planted, and
share to total area planted by variety were used to describe
the recent diffusion adoption of specific rice varieties. In
Fig. 2. Survey municipalities in the Rice-based Farm addition, because there are more than 100 varieties released
Household Survey (2001–2002).
since 1968, we also tried to group divide these varieties into
four distinct groups based on the dates of release and their
reaches the sample quota. Appendix Table 1 (available by distinct characteristics following Estudillo and Otsuka
request from the author or the journal) shows the distribu- (2006), and distinguishing as fourth-generation varieties
tion of the number of barangays per province covered in the (MV4) the varieties released after 1995 most of which were
three RBFHS. Despite the asymmetric sourcing of data, developed for adverse production environments (Table 1).
particularly between the 1993 survey and the 1996 and Following Estudillo and Otsuka (2006), the first-generation
2002 surveys, the data sets were used as is treating them MVs (MV1) consisting of IR series from IR5 to IR34 devel-
as cross-section data in the discussion of variety adoption. oped by IRRI and C4 series developed by the University
The total area planted of respondents was always used in of the Philippines were released from the mid-1960s to the
the derivation of indices, and in the case of 1996–1997 and mid-1970s. The MV1 varieties were potentially higher yield-
2001–2002 surveys, the difference in area is not significant ing than traditional varieties (TVs) under ideal conditions
so any anticipated variation in results may not be very sig- but not necessarily so on farmers’ fields due to its suscepti-
nificant to affect the trends. bility to pests and diseases. The MV1 varieties are more fer-
tilizer responsive than TVs because they are short
Table 1. Commercially released rice varieties† in the Philippines, 1968–2005. in stature and have stiff straw that enable them to
Total no. of bear more grains with greater fertilizer applica-
Variety Irrigated- Rainfed- Cool- Saline- varieties tion. Second-generation MVs (MV2) consisting
group‡ lowland lowland Upland Hybrid elevated prone released
MV1§ 16 1 1 0 0 0 18
of IR36 to IR62 were released from the mid-
MV2¶ 18 3 6 0 0 0 27 1970s to the mid-1980s. The MV2 varieties were
MV3# 20 8 1 1 2 2 34 designed to ensure yield stability by incorporating
MV4†† 30 7 5 7 4 6 59 multiple pest and disease resistance. The third-
Total 84 19 13 8 6 8 138 generation MVs (MV3) consisted of IR64 to IR72
† Varieties approved for release by the National Seed Industry Council (NSIC), previously the
Philippine Seed Board.
and PSBRc2 to PSBRc74 were released from the
‡ As defined by Estudillo and Otsuka (2006) with an additional category included (MV4 defined as
mid-1980s to the late 1990s. The MV3 varieties
those released after 1995). incorporated better grain quality and stronger host
§ MV1, IR series from IR5 to IR34; C4 series from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s. plant resistance. For policy purposes, we classified
¶ MV2, IR36 to IR62 released from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s. hybrid varieties as a separate category. Traditional
# MV3, IR64 to IR72; PSB Rc varieties released from mid-1980s to mid-1990s. varieties and varieties bred by the nongovernment
†† MV4, varieties released after 1995. organization Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa pag-

1382 Agronomy Journal • Volume 100, Issue 5 • 2008

Table 2. Spatial diversity indices used to evaluate Philippine grower adoption of rice varieties.†
Mathematical
Index Concept construction Explanation Adaptation in this paper
Margalef Richness D = (S – 1)/ln N Number of species (S) recorded, S is the number of rice varieties grown in a season by the
(D =>0) corrected for the total number of respondents, N is the total hectares of rice planted by the
individuals (N) summed over species respondents in that season
Berger-Parker Relative D = 1/(Nmax/N) The more dominant the most abundant Inverse of maximum area share occupied by any single
abundance (D =>1) species, the lower the index value rice variety
or Inverse
dominance

Shannon Both richness D = –∑pilnpi The pi is the proportion, or relative The pi is the area share occupied by the ith variety
and relative (D =>0) abundance of a species
abundance
† Source: Smale et al. (2003); Mathematical construction and explanation defined by Magurran (1988).

unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG) were also under separate
categories. A percent distribution of respondents by variety
groups was used to compare adoption by variety groups.
Conceptually, a promising line undergoes a series of field
performance tests and evaluation trials before it can be released
as a commercial variety. In the Philippines, a promising line
coming from preliminary yield trials is subjected to national
cooperative testing and multi-adaptation trials, and the check
variety usually used is the best available existing variety.
Therefore, newly released varieties are expected to perform
similar to if not better than the existing varieties in the given
environment for which it is recommended. When a farmer
chooses to adopt a new variety in place of an older variety, it
reflects the farmer’s judgment that the new variety offers some
net benefit or advantage (Evenson and Gollin, 2003). With this
in mind, we also calculated simple indices to understand more
the dynamics of rice variety adoption, especially of the newly
released varieties. Indices such as the proportion of recent vari-
eties and weighted average age of varieties were calculated to
determine the adoption rate of the newly released varieties fol-
lowing Brennan (1984).
The proportion of recent varieties (Brennan, 1984) is the
proportion of the total area that is planted to recently released
varieties. This index, qit, is computed as follows:
qit = pit if year of release ≥t – m,
qit = 0 if year of release <t – m,
where pit is the proportion of the area sown to variety, i, in year,
t; m is the number of years used to define “recent.” Then
It = ∑q it
i
where I is the proportion of the total area that is sown to varieties
released in the previous m years. In this particular study, we assumed
a lag of 2 yr between the release of a variety and its availability to
farmers, and defined recent variety as a variety that is available to
farmers for five more years thus in this study we used m = 7.
The weighted average age of varieties (following Brennan and
Byerlee, 1991), on the other hand, consists of the weighted aver-
age age of varieties grown by farmers in a given year, measured
in years from varietal release and weighted by the proportion of
area sown to each variety at that time. This index, WAt, is com-
puted for a given year, t, as follows:
WAt = ∑p R it it
i
where R it is the age of the variety in terms of the number of
years (at time t) since the release of variety i. Th is measure
avoids the use of an arbitrary defi nition of “new” or “recent”
varieties (Brennan and Byerlee, 1991). The oldest and new-
est varieties planted were also identified in the three survey
periods to provide an additional indicator of how fast newly
released varieties are observed in farmers’ fields.
To analyze the spatial diversity of varieties in farmers’
fields, both actual spatial data tabulations and spatial diver-
sity indices were derived. The estimated proportion of area
planted to only one or few varieties in a province and the
number of released varieties planted by farmers in a province
at a given year and season were also described. Spatial diver-
sity was also analyzed using diversity indices used by ecolo-
gists following Benin et al. (2004) and Smale et al. (2003).
Table 2 shows the concepts and mathematical formulae used
in deriving the indices adapted from Smale et al. (2003) but
applying it in the case of rice.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Modern Rice Varieties Planted in Farmers’ Fields
It did not take long for farmers in the Philippines to adopt
MVs. After their introduction in the mid-1960s, more than
50% of the total rice area was planted to MVs by 1970, espe-
cially in the irrigated ecosystem (Fig. 3). This adoption rate
steadily grew, and by 1980, around 90% of the irrigated areas
were planted to MVs and 80% in the rainfed areas. The 2002
data showed that only <5% of the total area harvested was not
planted with MVs and in 2004, almost 100% of the total pro-
duction in the irrigated areas came from MV production.
Using the three cross-section survey data, Table 3 shows the
most common varieties planted in the years after 1990 based on
number of farmers reporting. Enduring varieties released in the
1970s and 1980s are IR64, IR74, and IR42 and Burdagol later
released as PSB Rc34. IR64 still ranked first or second until
the 2002 survey. In the 1997 and 2002 surveys, PSB Rc10, an
extremely early-maturing variety released in 1992, and PSB
Rc18, released in 1994 and known for its resistance to pests and
diseases particularly during the wet season (WS), were widely
used along with IR64. PSB Rc14, released in 1992, and PSB
Rc28, released in 1995 were also widely used in both seasons
and ecosystems largely for its high yield potential and good
grain quality. Masipag varieties bred by a nongovernment orga-
nization largely through farmers’ selection strategy also ranked
high. PSB Rc80 and PSB Rc82 were widely used among the
varieties released in 2000. PSB Rc82 has the highest maximum

Agronomy Journal • Volume 100, Issue 5 • 2008 1383

 Rc18 in irrigated areas even during
the 2001 WS. The recommended
type of ecosystem for a certain
variety, however, does not appear
to limit adoption. The 1997 survey
shows that many farmers adopted
IR42 and IR36 in rainfed areas
even if both varieties were released
for irrigated lowland. IR64, PSB
Rc10, and several other varieties
recommended for irrigated eco-
systems were also widely planted
in rainfed areas, and PSB Rc14,
which is recommended for rainfed-
lowland system, was also widely
adopted in irrigated areas.
In general, the top reasons given
for using a variety were high-
yielding, good grain quality, avail-
Fig. 3. Trend in area harvested to MV, Philippines (1965–2002). ability, resistance to pests, and early
Table 3. Percentage distribution of respondents by most commonly planted varieties, by sea- maturing. For PSB Rc10, the most
son and by ecosystem.† common reasons given by farm-
1992 WS 1993 DS 1996 WS 1997 DS 2001 WS 2002 DS ers were that it was high yielding,
Year early maturing, and was available
Variety released IRR RF IRR RF IRR RF IRR RF IRR RF IRR RF
IR5 1968 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
in the area. IR64 remains popular
IR 36 1976 4.3 6.4 4.0 10.0 2.3 6.1 1.9 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 for its good grain quality, higher
IR 42 1977 4.9 8.8 4.3 50.0 3.3 7.2 2.5 3.8 1.3 4.5 1.7 0.8 price, and availability. IR42 was
BPI Ri10 1983 9.7 4.6 8.2 6.7 2.0 2.2 1.6 2.2 0.8 1.3 0.9 1.3 still planted because it was paid with
IR 60 1983 6.4 6.4 7.0 3.3 3.3 3.2 5.1 2.4 0.9 2.0 0.8 1.1 a price premium similar to IR64.
IR 64 1985 23.1 34.7 24.5 3.3 18.0 18.1 14.7 12.8 16.6 9.9 17.3 13.2
IR 66 1987 8.8 11.2 10.5 6.7 4.1 4.8 4.7 3.3 1.6 1.2 1.1 0.0
Farmers’ reasons for using PSB Rc82
IR 68 1988 1.7 1.5 1.1 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 were that it was high yielding and has
IR 70 1988 1.0 1.1 0.2 3.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 good grain quality similar to IR64.
IR 72 1988 4.2 1.3 6.1 3.3 0.9 0.7 1.2 1.1 0.5 2.4 0.6 0.9 In terms of adoption by variety
IR 74 1988 7.5 1.1 6.5 0.0 3.6 3.8 3.0 3.1 5.4 3.1 3.9 2.0 groups, Table 4 shows that a signifi-
PSB Rc2 1991 2.5 2.9 2.1 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2
PSB Rc4 1991 2.5 1.3 3.3 0.0 2.4 2.3 2.7 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.9 1.3
cant percentage of farmers are still
PSB Rc10 1992 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 18.5 18.9 16.4 25.9 10.8 10.8 4.1 9.9 planting MV2 varieties in 1997
PSB Rc12 1992 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 2.0 0.2 1.1 1.1 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.3 although most of the farmers are
PSB Rc14 1992 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 8.3 6.3 10.4 7.6 5.0 5.0 4.4 4.1 planting MV3 varieties and some
PSB Rc18 1994 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 3.6 5.9 5.4 20.0 13.2 18.0 12.4 have started planting MV4 variet-
PSB Rc28 1995 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 8.4 6.8 6.1 4.9
PSB Rc36 1995 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.7 2.0 3.1 1.3 2.7
ies. By 2002, data show <10% of
PSB Rc34‡ 1995 6.1 1.5 5.5 0.0 1.2 1.1 1.3 0.7 2.3 1.9 0.9 2.7 farmers planting MV2 and more
PSB Rc74 1998 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.0 than 10% of farmers planting
PSB Rc82 2000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 3.4 9.2 3.1 MV4. The trend in variety use is
PSB Rc80 2000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.4 2.3 3.4 similar for both ecosystems except
Masipag 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.1 2.8 2.2 4.7 7.2 5.0 9.1
Pino 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
in the 1993 DS in which a majority
Biniding 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 1.3 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 of the respondents in the rainfed
† IRR, irrigated; RF, rainfed. area still used MV2 varieties. In
‡ Burdagol. most of the seasons, the percentage
of farmers planting MV3 and MV4
test plot yield at 12 t/ha among released varieties, is resistant was larger in the irrigated ecosystem. Between seasons, more
to rice blast, has long grain, and has high milling recovery farmers planted MV4 during the DS implying greater adoption
(PhilRice, 2007). of newer varieties during the DS. Overall, data show decreasing
The trend in the percentage distribution by variety planted trend in the use of MV2s and increasing use of MV4s.
in irrigated and rainfed ecosystems, and during DS and WS
is dependent on variety characteristics. For example, more Adoption of Newly Released Varieties
farmers planted the early-maturing variety PSB Rc10 in rain- and Variety Replacement
fed areas compared to irrigated areas during the DS probably Results of the surveys including early reports of monitor-
owing to the limited water availability. On the other hand, ing rice variety adoption conducted by PhilRice in 1988 in
many farmers planted the late-maturing disease-resistant PSB four major rice-growing regions indicate the fast diff usion of

1384 Agronomy Journal • Volume 100, Issue 5 • 2008

some newer varieties to major rice Table 4. Trend of rice variety planted by farmers (percent of responses), by variety group.
growing areas. IR64 was released Variety 1992 WS 1993 DS 1996 WS 1997 DS 2001 WS 2002 DS
commercially in 1985 and was Group IRR RF IRR RF IRR RF IRR RF IRR RF IRR RF
already widely used in the major MV1† 3.3 6.8 2.1 0.0 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.0 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.0
MV2‡ 29.2 31.0 27.1 70.0 12.2 20.3 12.0 15.7 4.6 9.0 4.1 3.3
rice-producing areas in Luzon and
MV3§ 53.0 56.7 56.1 20.0 73.7 66.7 71.4 68.5 73.1 58.8 60.5 55.5
in the Western Visayas 2 yr after its MV4¶ 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.5 1.3 0.7 7.1 9.9 18.4 13.9
release (Quintana, 1991a, 1991b, Hybrid 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.8
1991c, 1991d). The same author Masipag 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.5 3.3 2.7 4.8 7.4 5.1 9.7
reported that IR66, bred by IRRI Traditional 8.6 1.8 8.4 0.0 0.6 1.1 1.2 1.4 5.0 6.6 4.0 8.8
Unclassified 5.6 2.9 6.2 10.0 7.6 6.8 8.7 8.9 4.6 7.2 7.2 8.0
and released in 1987, was already † MV1- IR series from IR5 to IR34; C4 series from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s.
adopted by 12% of the respondents ‡ MV2- IR36 to IR62 released from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s.
in Western Visayas by the 1988 DS. § MV3- IR64 to IR72; PSB Rc varieties released from mid-1980s to mid-1990s.
Rainfed farmers in the Cagayan val- ¶ MV4- Varieties released after 1995.
ley also already reported planting
IR70 and IR72 in the 1988 WS survey. Both varieties were farmers still used varieties released before the 1997 period, even
officially released only in 1988. PSB Rc21 and PSB Rc4, released while new varieties occupied a significant portion of the rice area.
only in 1991 were reported by around 5% of farmers in the 1992 A comparison between seasons also showed that in general, a wider
WS and 1993 DS surveys. PSB Rc82, a variety released only in area is planted to newer varieties during the DS.
2000, was the third most popular variety in the 2002 DS survey Table 5 also shows that in the few rainfed DS areas covered
and was estimated to be used in 9% of the total irrigated areas in in the 1997 and 2002 surveys, 57 and 32% were planted to
that season. new varieties. These results imply that rainfed rice farmers also
The proportion of the total area planted to new varieties adopt new rice varieties almost as much as the irrigated rice
(varieties released in the previous 7 yr from the time of sur- farmers. However, the same surveys showed that more farmers
vey) is on average around 30 to 40% of the total rice area in in the irrigated areas use certified and good seeds compared
the country (Table 5). In the 1996–1997 crop year, varieties with rainfed farmers (Cataquiz et al., 2006).2 It is possible that
released from 1990 to 1996 covered more than 50% of the rice farmers in the rainfed rice areas buy or exchange new variet-
area planted except in the rainfed area during the WS. In 2002, ies from co-farmers who are in irrigated areas, where there is
new rice varieties occupied 24 to 36%, lower than the 1997 widespread promotion of the use of certified seeds through
scenario because PSB Rc18, IR64, PSB Rc10, and Masipag vari- the national rice program.By using the weighted average age of
eties, none of which is a new variety per definition, dominated varieties as an index of adoption rate of new varieties, we found
the farmers’ field. On the province level, 19 of the 30 provinces that higher adoption of varieties occurred during the DS in
surveyed had more than 50% of their area in the 1997 DS the irrigated ecosystem (Table 5). The weighted average age of
planted to new varieties, and only 5 of the 33 provinces in 2002 varieties planted in the country ranged from around 8 to 11 yr,
(Appendix Table 2, available by request from the author or the with the average age in the irrigated areas during DS at 8 to 9
journal). This indicates that in the 2002 cropping year, most of the
2 For the paper, an analysis of the 1997 data set showed 10% of the rainfed
1 Beginning in 1990, the NSIC adopted a variety nomenclature using a code
rice farmers adopting certified, registered, and foundation seeds, while
prefi x of PSB Rc plus a number for all rice varieties released. Each variety also 21% adopted in irrigated areas. In 2002, 28% of the farmer-respondents in
is assigned a local name corresponding to names of popular river or lake for irrigated areas adopted certified seeds or better compared with only 17% in
irrigated and rainfed-lowland varieties, and mountains for upland varieties. the rainfed areas.

Table 5. Indices of adoption rate of new varieties, by season and farm type, Philippines.
Proportion Most recent variety used Oldest variety used
No. of sown to Weighted
Year released recent average age
and varieties varieties‡ of varieties§ Year
Season Ecosystem planted† (It/%) (WAt/yr) Variety Year released Variety released
1992 WS irrigated 39 32.9 9 PSBRc6,-10,-12 May 1992 IR8, C4–63G, BPI76 1968
rainfed 37 20.1 10 PSBRc2,-4 Nov. 1991 IR8,-5, C4–63G, BPI76 1968
1993 DS irrigated 34 37.0 8 PSBRc8,-10,-12,-14 May 1992 IR8, C4–63G, BPI76 1968
rainfed 8 10.3 14 IR72 1988 IR36 1976
1996 WS irrigated 53 51.4 9 PSBRc5,-54,-56,-60 Nov. 1997 IR20 1969
rainfed 45 43.5 10 PSBRc3,-5,-60,-72H Nov. 1997 IR20 1969
1997 DS irrigated 49 54.7 8 PSBRc3,-5,-54,-60 Nov. 1997 IR20 1969
rainfed 38 57.4 9 PSBRc5,-60,-68 Nov. 1997 IR20 1969
2001 WS irrigated 47 23.5 11 NSIC Rc122, PSB Rc 90,-94 Dec. 2003, Jan. 2001 BPI Ri3 1973
rainfed 49 28.9 11 PSB Rc90/-94 Jan. 2001 IR29, IR32 1975
2002 DS irrigated 54 36.0 9 PSBRc90,-94,-98,-100 Jan. 2001 IR29, IR32 1975
rainfed 49 32.0 10 NSIC Rc122, PSB Rc 94,-100 Dec. 2003, Jan. 2001 IR42 1977
† This is the total number of released varieties mentioned by farmers. This does not include varieties which are not released by the Philippine seed board or now, the
National Seed Industry Council, such as the Masipag varieties or other selections or lines; traditional varieties; or farmer-selections or farmer-named varieties.
‡ Proportion of recent varieties is an index showing the proportion of the area planted to varieties released in the previous 7 yr.
§ Weighted average age of varieties is an index of the average age of released varieties grown by farmers, measured in years from varietal release and weighted by the
proportion of area sown to each variety.

Agronomy Journal • Volume 100, Issue 5 • 2008 1385

Table 6. Percentage share of popular variety to total area planted, by season.† imately 50 to 60% of the rice
1992 WS 1993 DS 1996 WS 1997 DS 2001 WS 2002 DS area in both seasons. Tarlac,
Rank Variety CPA Variety CPA Variety CPA Variety CPA Variety CPA Variety CPA on the other hand, had 55% of
1 IR 64 30.3 IR 64 26.0 PSB Rc10 18.2 PSB Rc10 17.1 PSB Rc18 17.4 IR 64 16.1 its area in the 2001 WS and
2 IR 66 39.4 IR 66 35.9 IR 64 35.7 IR 64 31.6 IR 64 32.7 PSB Rc18 31.3 2002 DS planted only to PSB
3 IR 60 47.4 IR 60 43.8 PSB Rc14 43.1 PSB Rc14 40.5 PSB Rc10 44.9 PSB Rc82 40.5 Rc18. This result implies that
4 BPI Ri10 54.6 BPI Ri10 50.8 PSB Rc18 49.1 PSB Rc18 47.1 PSB Rc28 52.0 Masipag 47.3
despite the many rice varieties
5 IR 42 61.3 IR 42 57.5 IR 42 54.7 IR 60 51.7 Masipag 57.2 PSB Rc28 52.8
commercially released, few
6 IR 36 66.7 IR 72 64.0 IR 66 58.8 IR 66 55.5 IR 74 62.1 PSB Rc10 57.2
rice varieties are planted at
7 IR 74 71.9 IR 74 69.8 IR 74 62.9 IR 42 58.5 PSB Rc14 66.1 IR 74 61.0
8 Burdagol 76.0 Burdagol 74.5 IR 60 66.2 IR 74 61.4 PSB Rc82 69.7 PSB Rc14 64.4
one time. Rice farmers in the
9 IR 72 79.1 IR 36 78.7 IR 36 69.2 IR 36 63.8 IR 42 72.6 PSB Rc80 67.2 country generally plant only
10 PSB Rc2 81.8 PSB Rc4 81.8 PSB Rc4 71.2 Masipag 66.1 PSB Rc36 74.9 PSB Rc78 69.0 one or two varieties per season
† CPA = cumulative percentage of area; DS = dry season; WS = wet season. in their field. Accounts dur-
ing field interviews also reveal
yr. This relatively consistent trend based on the three cross-sec- that farmers are aware of new good performing varieties in the
tion survey data implies that varieties in farmer fields in general neighboring farmer fields by visual or word of mouth so that
are replaced every 8 to 11 yr, faster in the irrigated areas during good performing new varieties are subsequently tried in the
the DS. In the 1997 survey, the average age of varieties planted following season.
in majority of the provinces were <10 yr in both seasons, while Table 7 shows the spatial diversity indices calculated based
in the 2002 survey, it was 10 yr and more. This confirms the on the household surveys. The ranges of the spatial indices
above observation that although some farmers planted new show differences across provinces in terms of spatial diversity
varieties, most of the rice areas in 2002 were planted to variet- of rice varieties but not so much across periods. There are
ies released before 1997. some provinces where the Margalef index-number of variet-
The information on the oldest and newest variety used ies per unit of area is less than one while there are provinces
indicates two things. First, some farmers planted varieties where the index is as much as six to seven. There is no marked
released more than 20 yr ago. In 1997, a few farmers in various change from the 1996–1997 to 2001–2002 crop periods.
provinces still planted IR20, an early modern variety bred for These data indicate that even with a greater number of varieties
insect and disease resistance released in 1969 (Barker et al., from which farmers can choose from, the number of varieties
1985). In 2002, some farmers still planted varieties released in planted in the farmers’ rice area at any one period does not vary
1975 such as IR29 and IR32, and many farmers planted IR42 much, suggesting that there is in a way a bandwagon effect in
released in 1977. Second, some varieties are planted in farmer farmers’ variety-use where certain preferred varieties planted
fields immediately after its release and sometimes even before by one farmer are also planted by other farmers. These data also
it is officially released. For example, many varieties released in reinforce the fact that rice farmers, when given more variety
November 1997 were already used by some farmers mostly in options, replace their previous variety. They do not increase the
Luzon and Mindanao in the 1996 WS and 1997 DS. Th is is number of varieties planted at one time. The average farm size
possible because there are some recommended varieties which is 1.1 to 1.2 ha, but an examination of the respondents who
were submitted for seed increase but the official approval was have planted >5 ha showed that more than 80% planted only
delayed. Some farmers’ selection varieties are also planted in one variety at one time. One possible factor for this practice is
farmer fields long before they are officially released such as the that during marketing, traders or millers prefer buying in bulk
case of Angelica (farmers’ selection released as NSIC Rc122). similar quality rough rice particularly the grain size and shape
PSB Rc90 and PSB Rc94, both released only in January 2001 which slightly differ among rice cultivars.
were used by farmers by the June planting of 2001. In terms of the index of whether or not certain cultivars
dominate others, Berger-Parker index ranged from as low as
Spatial Diversification 1.02 (the case of Davao Oriental, where the IR64 quality is
Using the cumulative percent area planted to top varieties as distinct and demanded by consumers so that almost 98% of
a parameter for spatial diversification, Table 6 shows that only the total area was planted to IR64) to as high as 8.5 (the case of
four or five varieties occupy around 50% of the area planted to Laguna province, which is located near IRRI, where as many
rice in the country at one time. In fact in 2001 WS, 75% of the as 26 different rice varieties were planted in the 64 ha sampled.
total area planted was estimated to be planted to only 10 dif- This range and the relatively large standard deviation especially
ferent rice varieties. Given the numerous variety releases, this in the 2002 DS indicate wide variability in the extent to which
seems to be narrow variety use. Compared with data for other one variety dominates in a given area. The Berger-Parker Index
countries (Food and Agriculture Office, 2003), however, the overall mean is relatively low considering the total number
Philippine case seem to be more diverse, that is, assuming that of commercially released varieties, implying that selected
the 10 varieties descended from different parentage. preferred rice varieties indeed dominate the farmers’ fields.
Variety diversification also differs at the provincial level. In Comparing 1996 WS to 2001 WS, the Berger-Index showed a
most provinces, only two to three varieties occupy 50% of the decrease in the dominance index on average, but no consistent
total area while in some cases, only one, or four to five varieties. trend in the province calculations. Less dominance is evident
For example, in the case of Bukidnon and Camarines Sur prov- during the DS which suggests that farmers are probably trying
inces in the 1997 survey, only PSB Rc10 was planted in approx- more varieties during the less risky DS.

1386 Agronomy Journal • Volume 100, Issue 5 • 2008

Table 7. Indices of the spatial diversity of the rice varieties grown in major rice growing provinces of the Philippines, 1992–2002.
Margalef Index Berger-Parker Shannon Index
Province name 1996WS† 1997DS 2001WS 2002DS 1996WS 1997DS 2001WS 2002DS 1996WS 1997DS 2001WS 2002DS
Agusan del Norte 3.37 4.23 4.64 1.78 2.80 4.60 2.02 2.11 2.04 2.48 2.05 1.52
Agusan del Sur 3.24 2.95 3.30 3.85 2.50 3.55 2.06 1.76 1.95 2.13 1.90 1.82
Albay 4.15 4.42 4.52 5.97 5.33 5.61 3.21 5.01 2.28 2.35 2.21 2.60
Bohol 3.62 4.69 3.79 4.63 3.40 3.51 2.49 3.19 1.90 2.15 2.03 2.31
Bukidnon 3.42 3.34 4.38 5.96 1.93 2.00 5.07 6.48 1.88 1.83 2.57 2.93
Bulacan 3.45 3.19 3.03 2.25 2.70 6.54 3.39 2.53 2.10 2.37 2.06 1.70
Cagayan 4.25 3.71 4.52 4.59 4.92 5.17 5.69 7.01 2.44 2.57 2.29 2.35
Camarines Sur 3.72 3.59 4.73 5.46 1.67 1.98 2.68 3.88 1.65 1.84 2.33 2.67
Davao del Norte 5.26 5.16 3.14 2.46 4.28 6.91 3.74 1.61 2.56 2.60 2.00 1.36
Davao del Sur 2.50 1.83 2.25 3.53 3.30 3.52 3.06 3.32 1.73 1.58 1.80 2.04
Davao Oriental – – 0.48 0.71 – – 1.02 1.13 – – 0.13 0.46
Ilocos Norte 4.53 2.21 4.83 4.08 2.90 2.63 5.82 6.40 2.08 1.51 2.10 2.22
Iloilo 2.46 2.06 5.43 5.08 1.51 1.88 3.52 4.96 1.19 1.48 2.53 2.61
Isabela 3.10 3.10 3.21 3.86 2.57 2.82 3.13 2.77 1.72 1.80 2.00 2.12
Laguna 5.62 4.18 6.01 5.19 7.48 7.10 8.50 9.13 2.85 2.52 2.85 2.61
Leyte 4.60 4.44 3.19 4.17 6.64 8.82 1.77 2.27 2.75 2.67 1.66 2.07
Maguindanao 5.03 1.44 2.10 2.30 6.72 2.13 2.47 3.41 2.70 1.26 1.87 2.13
North Cotabato 5.87 4.92 4.94 4.57 4.63 3.21 3.30 2.98 2.65 2.40 2.43 2.28
Northern Samar 3.23 4.08 3.94 3.84 2.50 4.84 6.68 6.80 1.80 2.46 2.53 2.51
Nueva Ecija 3.90 4.96 2.41 2.37 5.98 4.77 2.86 2.53 2.34 2.57 1.94 1.66
Mindoro Occidental 1.04 2.13 3.07 2.42 2.44 3.28 2.87 1.45 1.45 1.90 2.07 1.17
Mindoro Oriental 4.23 4.26 3.16 3.36 2.65 2.45 2.30 3.65 2.05 2.04 2.02 2.27
Pampanga 2.30 2.35 2.56 2.46 5.73 6.09 3.42 2.98 2.17 2.25 1.89 1.99
Pangasinan 5.87 4.26 5.56 4.97 6.89 4.51 4.45 3.84 2.73 2.42 2.67 2.58
Quezon 2.56 2.31 4.00 3.82 3.47 4.34 4.44 5.11 2.12 1.99 2.45 2.53
South Cotabato 3.21 4.25 3.28 3.99 7.91 5.76 1.91 5.39 2.43 2.71 1.87 2.39
Sultan Kudarat 4.17 2.51 3.78 3.58 8.13 4.94 5.62 4.98 2.43 1.99 2.52 2.51
Tarlac 4.80 3.83 3.68 3.24 5.46 4.61 1.83 1.83 2.59 2.39 1.66 1.51
Zamboanga Norte 5.66 4.73 4.70 5.28 4.07 4.48 5.75 4.52 2.49 2.24 2.42 2.47
Zamboanga Sur 4.44 5.25 3.78 4.72 3.40 4.59 2.58 3.07 2.41 2.66 2.09 2.32
Aurora 3.39 3.88 2.43 3.69 3.57 4.45 3.55 3.12 2.23 2.44 1.95 2.22
Compostela Valley – – 1.18 – – 1.44 – – – 0.96 –
Zamboanga Sibugay – – 2.11 1.95 – – 3.68 – – – 1.95 –
Mean 3.90 3.61 3.58 3.75 4.25 4.37 3.52 3.85 2.19 2.19 2.05 2.13
Std Deviation 1.16 1.09 1.25 1.30 1.95 1.69 1.66 1.90 0.41 0.39 0.50 0.52
Minimum 1.04 1.44 0.48 0.71 1.51 1.88 1.02 1.13 1.19 1.26 0.13 0.46
Maximum 5.87 5.25 6.01 5.97 8.13 8.82 8.50 9.13 2.85 2.71 2.85 2.93
† WS = wet season; DS = dry season.

The wide difference in the diversity index across provinces
is also reflected in the calculated Shannon index–for example,
minimum of close to zero (0.13) and maximum of 2.85 in
2001 WS. A close to zero Shannon index means that the
area share distribution of the varieties is not even. The mean
Shannon index did not significantly change from the 1996–
1997 to 2001–2002 period, although there is an observed
slight decrease implying a lesser degree of equality in the
area share distribution of varieties in the farmers’ fields.
The calculated spatial diversity indices show no clear
trend across periods except a relative increase in the coef-
ficient of variation of the indices by season from 1997 to
2002, and some indications of relatively increasing richness
and lower dominance especially during the DS where farm-
ers are more adventurous in trying more varieties. Spatial
diversity also varies across provinces in terms of richness,
relative abundance, and evenness. These results can be used
in further understanding the concern on genetic diversity as
a factor to vulnerability to pests and diseases. We assume,
however, that farmers choose varieties based on their
observable traits or genetic expression rather than on genetic
composition at a molecular level, which they cannot see
(Smale et al., 2003; Rubenstein et al., 2005). It is important
therefore that future analyses consider the parental lines
or the genetic makeup of the current rice varieties planted
in the farmer fields to determine the exact state of genetic
diversity in rice.
CONCLUSIONS
The main contribution of this paper is to document and
describe, using three sets of nationwide farmer surveys, the
recent adoption of rice varieties in farmer fields, especially the
later generation varieties. Data showed that although enduring
varieties released in the 1970s and 1980s such as IR64, IR74,
and IR42 and Burdagol are still planted in farmer fields, there
is also evidence of the fast adoption of selected newly released
varieties such as PSB Rc18, PSB Rc10, PSB Rc28, Masipag, PSB
Rc14, and PSB Rc82. A progression in the use of MVs from the
early to the later generation is also evident from the decreasing
trend in the use of MV2s and the increasing trend in the use of
MV4s. This information can be used to encourage policymak-
ers to continually support and strengthen the current efforts
of public rice breeding research and extension. The higher
adoption rate in irrigated areas and during the DS also points
to the importance of sufficient irrigation and less risk of pests
and diseases in the early adoption of new varieties. In addition,

Agronomy Journal • Volume 100, Issue 5 • 2008 1387

the continued adoption of varieties that guarantee higher yields
and command higher market price also shows that farmers
respond to economic incentives.
On the adoption of new varieties, the study showed accounts
of early adoption of new varieties. The aggregate measure of
replacement period of rice varieties in the country is around 8
to 11 yr despite the high rate of release of new rice varieties. The
average replacement period is lowest during the DS in irrigated
areas (8–9 yr) which implies a faster adoption rate. This reflects
that in general, new varieties are superior to the old ones; how-
ever, there is a lag between variety release and the initiation of
adoption. These findings should be considered in the policy
of variety release and promotion, as it is possible that newly
released superior varieties which may not have diff used yet will
be crowded-out by more recent variety releases. It is important
that the seed network responsible for promoting new varieties
be strengthened in order that all new varieties would have at
least been tried by farmers in other locations and its potential
taken advantage of before it will be crowded-out by varieties
tested superior in other locations. The successful performance
of new varieties in village demonstration sites, proper infor-
mation flow of these successes, and the timely availability of
certified and registered seed immediately after release must
be ensured in order not to delay the diff usion of the variety.
In addition, some farmers’ selection varieties such as the case
of PSB Rc34 or Burdagol and NSIC Rc122 or Angelica and
Masipag varieties are adopted in farmer fields even before they
are officially released. Thus, participatory breeding and con-
sideration of farmers’ selection as strategies for variety testing
should continually be explored and pursued.
On variety diversification, the three cross-section data
showed that around 70 to 80% of the rice areas in the country
are planted to only 10 different varieties in a given period, with
the majority being varieties released more than 5 yr before the
survey period. This area share per variety differs by province.
Rice farmers generally plant only one or two varieties per sea-
son in their field. In terms of spatial diversity indices, results
showed that there are relatively wide differences in diversity
across provinces but not so clear trends across periods. There is
an indication of a relative increase in richness and lower variety
dominance in the DS, but there is no sufficient evidence of sig-
nificant changes in the spatial diversity. This information has
implications on the on-farm genetic diversity of rice. But the
data used in the study is only quinquennial, which limits more
trend analysis of diversity. Further studies on the exact genetic
diversity of varieties in farmers’ fields, and on the determinants
of the spatial diversity will be necessary for biodiversity conser-
vation purposes.
Finally, a closer examination of the provincial indices indi-
cate that to some extent the proximity of the rice area to the
source of original seeds or to the experiment area has an effect
on the current state of morphological diversity and that farmer
to farmer learning is a strong factor for this. It is possible that
only the varieties which performed well in the near-the-source
areas, which has then become popular, are tried and planted by
farmers in the far-from-the-source areas. Thus, it is important
that the current provincial variety adoption rates and diversity
be taken into account when planning for variety testing and
promotion. More specific variety monitoring is important
1388
and should be considered in the mandate of the Bureau of
Agricultural Statistics who conducts sample quarterly survey of
rice-based farmers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Ms. Julieta F. Pariñas and Ms. Thelma Padolina
of the Plant Breeding and Biotechnology Division of the Philippine
Rice Research Institute for giving information on the latest variety
releases and their characteristics; and the staff of the Socioeconomics
Division for the concerted works on the data. The authors also thank
Dr. Paul Bauer and Dr. Jeremy Singer, and three anonymous reviewers
for constructive comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Any
remaining errors remain those of the authors.
REFERENCES
Barker, R., R.W. Herdt, and B. Rose (ed.) 1985. The rice economy of Asia.
Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
Benin, S., M. Smale, J. Pender, B. Gebremedhin, and S. Ehui. 2004. The eco-
nomic determinants of cereal crop diversity on farms in the Ethiopian
highlands. Agric. Econ. 31:197–208.
Brennan, J.P. 1984. Measuring the contribution of new varieties to increas-
ing wheat yields. Rev. Marketing Agric. Econ. 52:175–195.
Brennan, J.P., and D. Byerlee. 1991. The rate of crop varietal replacement
on farms: Measures and empirical results for wheat. Plant Var. Seeds
4:99–106.
Cataquiz, G., C.B. Casiwan, and D. Dawe. 2006. Seed subsidies need to be
well targeted and of limited duration. p. 77–80. In D. Dawe et al. (ed.)
Why does the Philippines import rice? Meeting the challenge of trade
liberalization. IRRI and Science city of Muñoz (Philippines):PhilRice,
Manila, the Philippines.
Dalrymple, D.G. 1986. Development and spread of high-yielding rice vari-
eties in developing countries. Bureau of Science and Technol., Agency
for Int. Develop., Washington, DC.
David, C.C., V.G. Cordova, and K. Otsuka. 1994. Technological change,
land reform, and income distribution in the Philippines. p. 51–106.
In C. David and K. Otsuka (ed.) Modern rice technology and income
distribution in Asia. Lynne Riernner Publ., Boulder, CO.
Estudillo, J., and K. Otsuka. 2006. Lessons from three decades of green
revolution in the Philippines. Dev. Econ. 44:123–148.
Evenson, R.E. 2002. The Green Revolution in developing countries: An
economist’s assessment. Available at http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/
groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN020402.pdf (accessed
September 2007; verified 1 July 2008).
Evenson, R.E., and D. Gollin. 2003. The Green Revolution: An end of cen-
tury perspective. Available at http://www.williams.edu/Economics/
wp/Gollin%20The%20Green%20Revolution.pdf (accessed September
2007; verified 1 July 2008).
Food and Agriculture Office. 2003. Genetic diversity in rice. In Proc. of
the 20th Session of the International Rice Commission. Bangkok,
Thailand. 23–26 July 2002. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Francisco, S. 1997. The impact of adoption of modern rice technology on the
productivity and equity of lowland farmers in Central Luzon. PhilRice
Tech. Bull. (2)1.
Herdt, R.W., and C. Capule. 1983. Adoption, spread and production impact
of modern rice varieties in Asia. Int. Rice Res. Inst., Los Baños,
Laguna, the Philippines.
Magurran, A. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton
Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
Padolina, T.F. 1995. Newly approved rice varieties. p. 89–96. In R. Fernandez
(ed.) Proc of the 8th National Rice Review and Planning Workshop,
PhilRice Maligaya, Munoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines. 1–3 Mar. 1995.
Philippine Rice Res. Inst., Nueva Ecija.
PhilRice. 1997. Monitoring of rice-based farm households in strategic rice
areas (A BAS-PhilRice Project) Manual of operations. Philippine Rice
Res. Inst., Maligaya, Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines.
PhilRice. 1998. Catalog of Philippine Seed Board Rice (PSB Rc) varieties.
Philippine Rice Res. Inst., Maligaya, Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, the Philippines.
PhilRice. 2007. Philippine Seedboard (PSB)/National Seed Industry Council
list of varieties. PhilRice Leaflet as of May 2007. Available at http://
www.philrice.gov.ph/by request (verified 1 July 2008).
Agronomy Journal • Volume 100, Issue 5 • 2008
Quintana, J. 1991a. Working paper on economic profi le of rice farmers in the
different agro-climatic environment of bicol region. Socioeconomics
Div., Philippine Rice Res. Inst., Maligaya, Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, the
Philippines.
Quintana, J. 1991b. Working paper on economic profi le of rice farmers in the
different agro-climatic environment of Central Luzon. Socioeconomics
Div., Philippine Rice Res. Inst., Maligaya, Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, the
Philippines.
Quintana, J. 1991c. Working paper on economic profile of rice farmers in the
different agro-climatic environment of Region 2. Socioeconomics Div.,
Philippine Rice Res. Inst., Maligaya, Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, the Philippines.
Agronomy Journal • Volume 100, Issue 5 • 2008
Quintana, J. 1991d. Working paper on economic profi le of rice farmers in
the different agro-climatic environment of Visayas. Socioeconomics
Div., Philippine Rice Res. Inst., Maligaya, Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, the
Philippines.
Rubenstein, K.D., P. Heisey, R. Shoemaker, J. Sullivan, and G. Frisvold.
2005. Crop genetic resources: An economic appraisal. A report from
the Economic Research Service. USDA Economic Info. Bull. 2, May
2005. ERS, USDA, Washington, DC.
Smale, M., E. Meng, J.P. Brennan, and Ruifa Hu. 2003. Determinants of
spatial diversity in modern wheat: Examples from Australia and China.
Agric. Econ. 28:13–26.
1389