Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101227

Available online 28 December 20190160-791X/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Golden Rice and technology adoption theory: A study of seed choice dynamics among rice growers in the Philippines

Dominic Glover a,*, Sung Kyu Kim a,1, Glenn Davis Stone b

a Institute of Development Studies (IDS), Brighton, BN1 9RE, UK b Department of Anthropology, Washington University in St. Louis (WUSTL), St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords: Rice Seed Learning Golden Rice Philippines

A B S T R A C T

Golden Rice (GR) is a much-debated transgenic crop. Many commentaries and economic analyses have assumed that, if and when the new GR varieties are released, the grains will automatically find their way onto the plates of children in especially poor families who are at risk of vitamin A deficiency (VAD). But many of these families are not rice growers or are unlikely to adopt the varieties into which the transgenic trait has been bred. This raises the neglected question addressed in this paper: How likely is it that commercial rice growers will choose to plant GR varieties? To examine this question, we draw upon and contribute to a wider literature on what drives farmers’ seed selection practices. Seed choice has been a frequent case in the elaboration of technology adoption theory. We apply a recently proposed tripartite model of learning, and present new survey data to shed light on the dynamics of seed choice and variety replacement rates among rice farmers in two sites in Nueva Ecija, Luzon, the Philippines. We compare our findings with previous research on the seed choices of Indian cotton and rice farmers in Warangal, Telangana, India. Seed choices in Nueva Ecija show a moderate degree of faddishness and herding behaviour, and the varieties in which the GR trait are expected to be available have declined in popularity. Farmers here show a modest and variable susceptibility to persuasion by external parties that seek to promote specific rice varieties. Our study suggests that commercial rice farmers may not choose to plant GR varieties unless they are offered specific inducements to do so.

1. Introduction

Golden Rice (GR) has played a prominent role in debates on genet-ically modified crops for almost two decades. Engineered to express the vitamin A precursor β-carotene (beta-carotene) in its grains, this crop is hoped to improve the nutritional status of malnourished children at risk of vitamin-A deficiency (VAD). GR has been under development at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) near Manila since 2001 without yet reaching the point of readiness for commercial release to farmers. But, assuming that the remaining technical challenges will be overcome eventually, and that regulatory approval will follow, Philippines rice farmers are likely to be among the first to be offered GR rice cultivars.2

One irony that has arisen from debates about the micronutrient biofortification of rice in the Philippines is that the nutritional

composition of most of the rice now available to and purchased by Philippine consumers was once richer in micronutrients than it is today, thanks to changes in milling practices and a related change in consumer preferences in favour of highly milled white rice. Government-backed campaigns to encourage Filipino consumers to switch back to more nutritious brown rice have met with mixed success, with the largest impacts seen among more affluent, better nourished consumers [1]. Another challenge is that increasing consumption of beta-carotene bio-fortified foods may not actually improve the vitamin-A status of the target population of poorly nourished consumers who are most at risk of VAD [2].

While these and several other aspects of GR have been extensively debated (e.g. Refs. [3,4]), the crucial question of how the rice might actually enter the food chain remains a black box. Some GR proponents, including one of its originators, have claimed that the crop would be

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: D.Glover@ids.ac.uk (D. Glover).

1 Present address: Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9SL, UK. 2 The other country where GR is has progressed furthest towards commercialisation is Bangladesh, but the transgenic crop has not been approved as of December

2019, and it remains unclear if or when it may be approved.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technology in Society

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101227 Received 17 September 2019; Received in revised form 12 December 2019; Accepted 21 December 2019

Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101227

2

provided ‘free of any charge to growers and consumers in poor devel-oping countries’ ([3]; p. 467, see also [5]), but in reality there is no such provision; companies owning the intellectual property embedded in GR have waived their technology fees for some farmers but nobody any-where has offered to multiply and distribute the rice gratis, either for consumption or cultivation. Economists have even tried to assess the expected benefits of GR without considering if, why, which, and how many farmers would plant it [5–8]. A few studies have considered whether consumers are willing to accept biofortified crops, including GR, often based on assessing the sensory qualities of biofortified foods [9]. The problem is that families poor enough to be affected by VAD are often landless and unable to grow rice for themselves. Diet supplement programmes have reduced VAD rates in the Philippines, so that GR is thought by its developers to be needed only in vestigial ‘difficult to reach’ areas [10].3 In 2003 the top areas for VAD in the Philippines were Mountain Province, where rice farmers are unlikely to adopt the lowland varieties into which the transgenic trait has been bred, and Marikina city, where virtually no rice is grown [11]. If the grain is to reach pop-ulations like these, GR seeds will need to be grown by commercial rice growers in provinces like Nueva Ecija.

Would these farmers be motivated to plant a new variety based on its nutrient content? If so, would they be likely to keep growing it for a sustained period? The likelihood of GR adoption has been considered only very briefly in the case of Bangladesh, where the new crop is also being evaluated for potential commercialisation [12]. A study by Deb [13], pp. 14–16 assumed that the first new GR variety to be released in Bangladesh would be adopted by farmers about as quickly as a previous successful variety, BRRI Dhan 29, which reached a peak of adoption after about 12 years, before declining again in popularity. (Deb’s assumption that the new GR variety would be at least as popular as BRRI Dhan 29 was based on an expectation that the new variety would pro-duce a 10% improvement in yield, however, this claim of a higher yield potential is unsupported, and it seems unlikely, owing to the common phenomena of yield lag and yield drag; see below.)

As the Philippines is very likely to be among the first countries to allow commercial cultivation of GR seeds, the absence within the liter-ature of explicit consideration of the specific characteristics of the Philippine rice sector, and especially Filipino farmers’ seed-selection practices, is a major oversight. While the question of GR adoption is of obvious practical importance, our concern is with the theoretical issues that the question raises, which must be answered if we are to have a realistic discussion of GR. Most studies of seed adoption in the Philippines have focused narrowly on agronomic factors and extension [14–17]. However this neglects the social aspects of seed adoption, which are always present to some degree and which may even dominate farmer decisions [18]. No GR variety has yet been released, which means that information about the varieties’ performance in farmers’ fields is not yet available. Nobody knows how nutritional value might be weighed by farmers when making their seed choices, as the question has not really arisen before, although many growers produce rice for do-mestic consumption as well as for sale. It is possible that nutrient content might influence the choices of some farmers, if they belong to the re-sidual population still affected by VAD. However, a lot may be learned from studying the dynamics of decision making in existing seed systems, in sites where GR is expected to be introduced. To this end, we con-ducted a multiyear study of rice growers in Nueva Ecija province of Central Luzon, an area known as the ‘rice bowl’ of the Philippines. Here we present data from interviews and a survey. We compare seed choices in two municipalities that differ in their exposure to didactic learning, and we take a particular interest in the periodicity of trends in seed

popularity. We use our insights into the dynamics of rice growers’ seed choices to speculate on the prospective effects of releasing GR varieties to Filipino farmers.

2. Learning, decision making and crop variety choices

The approach taken here hinges on three forms of learning. We do not distinguish between learning and decision making, which are often simultaneous; most major studies model decision making and learning as inextricable (e.g., Refs. [19,20]). We use the ‘learning’ terminology for consistency with the extant literature.

Previous research has explored the uptake by farmers of transgenic Bt cotton in Warangal district of the Indian state of Telangana,4 in the context of a political economy characterised by a rapid transition to-wards seed provision by the private sector, an information environment distorted by multiple competing brands, a cacophony of advertising claims, misleading product labels, and a rapid pace of introduction of thousands of new cotton varieties, whose basic characteristics are hard for farmers to observe and compare independently [21,22]. This longi-tudinal study in one area discovered a remarkable pattern of localised and short-term cottonseed fads or crazes, as well as a striking three-year periodicity in the rise to popularity and fall from favour of particular seed brands. These short-term cycles appear to be symptoms of herding behaviour5 in a disrupted learning environment, in which individuals receive uninformative and misleading signals about the effectiveness and consequences of their farming strategies, which constitute a deceptive basis for further decision making. Instead of observing the performance of their chosen varieties to inform subsequent planting decisions, farmers appeared to be copying their neighbours (even in the absence of information about the payoffs of those farmers’ decisions) and deferring to the advice of off-farm actors, including advertisers, input suppliers and seed dealers [18].

This empirical work has been used to elaborate a more general the-ory of agricultural knowledge production, which distinguishes between three types of learning according to the source of information that in-dividuals receive from their surroundings as feedback about the payoffs of their own activities. These have been defined as environmental learning, in which the individual receives and interprets signals from nature or nonhumans (e.g. the yield performance of crops); social learning, in which the individual learns from signals received from other people or social groups; and didactic learning, in which decision making is influenced by off-farm entities such as extension agents, sales repre-sentatives and agricultural scientists. The information conveyed through these three channels tells recipients something about the payoffs of previous decisions or actions, and shapes expectations about the po-tential rewards or costs of a future course of action. Didactic learning is conceptually distinct from environmental and social learning, because it introduces the interests of off-farm actors (although the didacts gener-ally claim to have the farmers’ interests at heart) [21,23].

The value in this model comes from considering how the three modes of learning interact. Environmental learning from experimentation is what farmers themselves usually claim is the primary driver of their decisions, and it is the learning mechanism that agribusiness companies laud when farmers buy and use their products [21], p. 67. However, the farm is a flawed laboratory, because a) there are too many uncontrol-lable variables to isolate treatment effects, b) there are unobservable and poorly understood phenomena playing key roles in production outcomes (e.g. plant diseases and phytomicrobiotic interactions), and c) it is per-ilous for farmers to experiment with treatments that might fail. As a result, farmers’ experiments typically involve very simple variables, and

3 Between 2003 and 2008, childhood VAD incidence in the Philippines dropped from 40.1% to 15.2%, although it ticked up to 20.4% in 2013 [42,43]. As of 2014, 83% of the country was served by vitamin supplementation pro-grams [44].

4 The Indian state of Telangana was created in June 2014. The state was formerly a region of the state of Andhra Pradesh.

5 For perspectives on the same phenomenon from sociology see Ref. [45]; for economics see Refs. [46,47].

D. Glover et al.

Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101227

3

are rarely novel or very useful [24,25]. In short, farmers always engage in environmental learning, but can never rely solely upon it.

Previous research among Warangal farmers who cultivated both cotton and rice found markedly different patterns and dynamics in seed choices for the two crops [26–28]. While cotton plantings displayed the pattern of short-lived, local seed fads described above, rice seed choices were comparatively much more stable. Farmers had more experience with their rice varieties, and ‘developed a consistent rationale for their [rice] seed choices’ [27], p. 155. Rice seeds were marketed much less flamboyantly than the commodified cotton seed brands, which had punchy and memorable names such as Jackpot and Jaadoo (magic). The farmers were more familiar with their rice varieties, trying new ones from time to time but much less often than new cotton seeds, and assessing their performance over a longer period [28].

There are good reasons why farmers’ decision making would be different for cotton and rice. Cotton in India is a non-food,6 generic cash crop, where the single quality characteristic valued by most cotton processors is a long staple (fibre), which facilitates mechanised pro-cessing. By contrast, rice is a strategically important staple food crop, which also carries strong cultural associations and symbolic values for communities and nations. Rice is valued not only as a source of calories, but also for qualities such as taste, aroma, texture, and cooking char-acteristics, as well as spiritual and cultural uses. Alongside a large market for cheap, generic rice, traditional rice varieties are still grown by some farmers for domestic consumption, and market niches also exist for premium varieties such as basmati and jasmine rice, and for ‘heir-loom’ varieties [29–31].

3. Rice cultivation in Nueva Ecija

The Republic of the Philippines is a major producer and consumer of rice and an iconic site for changing rice seed. Known as a rice bowl of the nation, Nueva Ecija in Central Luzon was at the forefront of the Green Revolution in rice [32]. Its farmers were among the first to plant the famous IR-8 ‘modern variety’ (MV) in 1966. Nueva Ecija rice farmers use more fertilisers, achieve higher yields, and operate quite efficiently compared to those in other provinces of Central Luzon [33].

Two premier rice research institutions are located in the Philippines. The Philippine Rice research Institute (PhilRice) is located in Nueva Ecija, and has developed a steady stream of rice varieties and energet-ically promoted those seeds as an agricultural didact. The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in Los Ba~nos, Laguna, is an international crop research centre that spearheaded the rice Green Revolution and has also coordinated the Golden Rice project.

Trends in rice cultivation are well documented in Nueva Ecija, where the Central Luzon Loop Survey was repeated at four-to five-year in-tervals from 1966 to 2012 [33,34]. This survey confirms that the rate of technological change in this region has been rapid. A sweeping transi-tion to MVs was accompanied by various other changes in the modernisation of the rice farming system. Early MVs were replaced rapidly by second-generation MVs like IR-64 in the mid-1970s, which were more resistant to pests and diseases. By 1979 no farmer in the Loop Survey was still planting the traditional rice varieties that prevailed before 1966 [33]. A decade later, a third generation of MVs appeared, designed to produce better grains with even better resistance, and by 1995 the survey showed adoption of these varieties to be 100%. During this period, productivity and cropping intensity increased, because the new, short-season MVs could be cultivated twice per year in irrigated areas [33]. A fourth generation of MVs, including hybrid varieties, began to appear after 1995 [14,16].

The rapid adoption of MVs in the Loop Survey area replicated a transition seen nationally in the rice-based farm household survey (RBFHS), which has been conducted on a five-year cycle by PhilRice

[16]. For the purposes of this paper it is useful to qualify what ‘rapid’ means in this context. The complete replacement of traditional varieties with MVs took about 30 years. In successive rounds of the RBFHS, va-rieties classified as ‘new’ – having a release date as many as seven years prior to the survey date – typically occupied between a quarter and a half of the total rice area of the Philippines. Many farmers continued to plant older MVs alongside new ones, and some of the more popular MVs continued to feature among commonly planted seeds many years after their first release. Examples of enduringly popular MVs include IR-64 (released 1985), Rc10 (released 1992) and Rc82 (released 2000), which continued to be planted by many farmers over many years, and which still featured in our survey. The average age of varieties planted by rice farmers in the successive rounds of the RBFHS could be 10 years or more; typically, farmers replaced their rice varieties every eight to 11 years in wet seasons and a bit more often in dry seasons [16]. This suggests that the pace at which farmers abandoned older rice varieties and adopted newer ones has been moderate, compared to the rapid switching observed in cotton in Warangal District.

Inbreds and hybrids are the two types of MVs cultivated nowadays in Central Luzon. Inbreds are pure-line varieties created through several generations of backcrossing or self-pollination (in-breeding), in order to achieve a high level of genetic purity and uniformity. Hybrids, a subject of enduring concern in writing on the political economy of agriculture [35], are first-generation offspring of two different pure-line varieties; they display some degree of hybrid vigour but their performance de-clines steeply in subsequent generations, obliging farmers to buy fresh seed every season. Inbred seed can be saved and re-planted indefinitely, although most farmers refresh their supply periodically with pure seed from a grower or seed company. At these moments, they may decide to switch to a different variety.

Seed production is formally organised and regulated in the Philippines. Seed stocks are classified as foundation, registered or certified. Inbred varieties are developed by public breeders (PhilRice and IRRI) and distributed as foundation or registered seed to seed companies and certified growers who multiply and sell certified seed to farmers. Most rice growers seek certified seed and sometimes plant registered seed. Farmers typically obtain their inbred and hybrid seed from dealers, direct from the growers, or sometimes from the municipal office of the Department of Agriculture (DA), which provides limited quantities of seed at subsidised prices. Subsidies may also be given for seed purchased from dealers. Occasionally a farmer may obtain seed from a neighbour or relative instead of purchasing seed on the market.

Hybrids in Nueva Ecija have been an interesting case study in the limits to didactic learning in rice farming. Early hybrids from public breeders (IRRI and PhilRice) appeared on the market in 1994, but were adopted by few farmers. In 2002 the national government launched the Hybrid Rice Commercialisation Programme (HRCP), a coordinated effort to encourage the adoption of MVs in order to attain rice self- sufficiency [36,37]. The HRCP involved a remarkably concentrated government effort to stimulate the market for hybrid rice on both supply and demand sides: ‘the strategy adopted was to make hybrid seed pro-duction and hybrid rice cultivation artificially profitable through a structure of subsidies that is massive in scope and geographic coverage and quite prolonged in time’ [37], p. 13. Alongside generous subsidies, the HRCP involved a huge didactic effort, as ‘459,250 extension workers, R&D implementers, seed inspectors, agricultural technicians, and farmers attended technical briefings on hybrid rice seed technol-ogy.’ Campaign materials included ‘billboards, bulletins, newsletters, pamphlets … TV advertisements, radio plugs and jingles, instructional and promotional videos … to ensure nationwide awareness and appre-ciation of hybrid rice’ [36], p. 653). The results however were unim-pressive, with low uptake of the new cultivars in most areas, and many farmers switching quickly back to inbreds after one or two seasons [37]. In the Loop Survey area, hybrids were scarce until 2012. In 2015 it was reported that just one hybrid (out of more than 50 that have been released for cultivation) had been widely adopted by farmers in the 6 Small quantities of cottonseed oil are produced and consumed in India.

D. Glover et al.

Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101227

4

region [14]. Most hybrids on the market today have been developed by the private sector. Prominent companies supplying rice hybrids in Nueva Ecija include Syngenta, Bayer, Pioneer and SL-Agritech, all of which have active brand-based marketing programs (Fig. 3).

Early hybrids often failed to achieve the promised yield advantage in farmers’ fields, and were judged to have poorer grain quality than in-breds, but more importantly farmers also found the hybrids to be un-economical to grow. Despite their higher yield potential, the seeds are more expensive to purchase and to cultivate [14,37,38]. For this reason, some farmers are satisfied to plant inbreds, especially in the wet season. Hybrids are more popular in the dry season, among farmers who have the benefit of irrigation, when the crop is less at risk from storms, pests and diseases [14,37]. Farmers told us that some popular inbreds com-mand higher market prices because of their eating quality, making them a good choice for cultivation despite their lower yield potential.

4. Study design

We carried out a survey of rice farmers in the municipalities of Mu~noz and Zaragoza (Fig. 1). The two towns differ in their access to didactic learning. Mu~noz is known as Science City because it is the location of PhilRice as well as the agriculturally focused Central Luzon State University (CLSU) and four other national agricultural research institutes. PhilRice supplies foundation seed and registered seed to seed companies; it also retails and recommends seeds to individual farmers growing rice either for seed or as food (Fig. 2). Seed sales are one of PhilRice’s top sources of revenue, and PhilRice is often cited as a trusted source of agricultural information [39], p. 971. The campuses of CLSU and PhilRice are both situated directly on the Pan-Philippine Highway (AH26), a well-maintained two-lane trunk road which is a major spine of the Philippines national road network. In Mu~noz the road is flanked by seed dealers and chemical and machinery sellers. This area is also the scene of corporate information sessions held in temporary pavilions (Fig. 3).

Zaragoza is situated to the south of Mu~noz on the Santa Rosa—Tarlac road that links the Pan-Philippine Highway to the Subic—Clark—Tarlac Expressway (SCTEx). The journey to Zaragoza by road from the PhilRice campus in Mu~noz takes about one and a half hours along the main highway or a little over one hour via smaller paved roads. This means that Zaragoza is a fairly well-connected rural town, but removed from

the cluster of agricultural research and extension organisations, input dealers and temporary corporate marketing locations situated in Mu~noz. We expect that farmers here are less exposed to didactic interventions from these organisations.

We surveyed a sample of 115 rice farmers randomly selected from lists obtained at municipal agricultural offices in Mu~noz and Zaragoza. Table 1 provides some descriptive statistics of the sample. The profiles of farms in both locations were broadly similar. Farmers in both munici-palities planted rice in both wet and dry seasons, with slightly larger areas under rice in the dry season. Alongside the surveys, Glover and Stone conducted informal and semi-structured interviews with farmers, researchers, NGO leaders, input vendors, and staff at PhilRice and IRRI.

The survey instrument and interviews focused on rice varieties farmers were currently planting and their reasons for choosing these varieties. We also investigated rates at which farmers switched varieties by asking when they had adopted their current varieties, which varieties they had abandoned within the past five years, and their reasons for switching to new varieties. To investigate sources of social learning we asked farmers to name seeds that they believed to be popular among farmers in their local area. We also asked the farmers to name the source of their seeds. To shed light on possible sources of didactic learning and the influence of off-farm interests, we asked respondents who they turned to for technical support with farming problems, whether they received visits on the farm from agricultural technicians, and if they had ever participated in formal training courses, seminars or workshops organised by PhilRice, the DA, private seed companies, or other orga-nisations. To investigate environmental learning, we asked farmers what they knew about the varieties they currently planted, what character-istics they liked and disliked about these, why they abandoned old cultivars and switched to new ones, and how they attempted to assess the expected performance of new varieties before planting them for the first time.

The survey was carried out during February to April 2015, in the gap between the dry season (November 2014 to February 2015) and the wet season (May to August 2015). Our survey questions related to the completed dry and wet seasons of 2013–14. Other questions asked farmers to recall how long they had planted the varieties they had chosen for these two most recent seasons, and details of varieties they used to plant but no longer cultivated.

5. Data and results

Of key importance to the likelihood of GR adoption are seed replacement rates and the periodicity in popularity of varieties. As dis-cussed in section 3, rice farmers in Nueva Ecija have typically refreshed their seed portfolio once every decade or so. Farmers told us that, having found a variety they like, they tend to stick with it for a few seasons, until it no longer seems to perform as well as it did or as the best current varieties do. As they consider their next seed choice, they take a keen interest in new varieties and ones that are currently popular among their neighbours. They try to find out what seed is uso, a local term for something in style but with connotations of hipness or faddishness.

The knowledge that farmers replace seed periodically, and at these times may change to a new variety, was taken into consideration in the strategy for developing GR, although IRRI did not attempt to model how seed adoption and disadoption occur. The then manager of the GR research programme confirmed that a major reason for selecting Rc82 (‘Pe~naranda’) as the main variety for GR introgression was that when decisions were being made in the early 2000s, this was identified as an ‘emerging variety’ that they hoped would still be popular with farmers when GR was released. Indeed, Rc82 was the most popular rice variety in central Luzon in 2003–04, grown on over a third of the rice area studied, although it was knocked from its perch a year later [14], p. 10). The other main variety to which the GR trait has been added was the Green Revolution standby IR-64, which was still being planted in various locations across Asia even though it was losing popularity in the Fig. 1. Study area.

D. Glover et al.

Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101227

5

Philippines. In our survey, we defined a ‘planting’ as ‘one variety planted by one

farmer in one season’. Table 2 presents summary data on the number of inbred and hybrid varieties planted by the sampled farmers for the dry and wet seasons of 2013–2014. From the 115 farmers in the sample, we recorded 155 plantings in Mu~noz and 100 in Zaragoza. Of these, almost

the same number were planted in the wet season (128) as in the dry season (127), however, the ratio of wet to dry season plantings differed slightly between the two sites. As expected, in both municipalities, hy-brids were notably more popular in the dry season than the wet season.

An inventory of all the seed varieties named by farmers is shown in Appendices A and B (Tables A1 and A2). During the dry and wet seasons

Fig. 2. List of rice varieties on sale at PhilRice, summer 2013. Photo by Glenn D. Stone.

Fig. 3. Didactic learning in Nueva Ecija. Presentations like this one by Syngenta, featuring company representatives along with satisfied adopters of their tech-nologies, are common in the area of Science City. Photos by Glenn D. Stone.

D. Glover et al.

Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101227

6

of 2013–2014, farmers in our sample named 34 rice varieties in Mu~noz and 14 in Zaragoza. Plantings of the most popular rice varieties in dry and wet seasons for each municipality are depicted in Figs. 4 and 5. Our data confirms that just a few varieties dominate the local rice system in both places, with some local and seasonal differences. Only a handful of varieties were planted by more than five per cent of our sample in either season. In interviews in Mu~noz, two farmers and the head of an agri-culturally oriented NGO cited the inbred variety Rc222 as the uso seed, and our survey confirmed that this was the most popular variety by a distance, in both dry and wet seasons. Rc216 is another popular inbred variety in Mu~noz, especially in the wet season. The most popular hybrids in Mu~noz are Rc314H (Mestiso 46, brand name Bigante Plus) in the wet season and Rc132H (Mestiso 6, brand name SL-8H) in the dry season. Only one other seed is planted by more than five per cent of the farmers in Mu~noz, namely the hybrid SL-7 in the dry season. In Zaragoza, Rc222 is also the most popular inbred variety, followed by Rc216 as in Mu~noz, but in this case they are joined by Rc160. Zaragoza has a stronger sea-sonal difference in planting patterns, with almost half the farmers planting SL-8H (Rc132H) in the dry season. Remarkably, no other hybrid comes close to SL-8H.

Key agronomic characteristics of the most popular varieties are presented in Table 3. Of the three most popular inbred varieties, one was released in 2006 (Rc160) and the other two in 2009 (Rc216, Rc222). The two most popular hybrids were released in 2004. This indicates that the most popular varieties had been available at the time of planting for about five years (2009–2014) in the case of the inbreds and a decade (2004–2014) in the case of the hybrids. It is notable that the three popular inbreds all have high yield potential (especially in the wet season). The two newer inbreds show some degree of resistance to insect pests, but all three are somewhat susceptible to diseases. The yield po-tential of the two popular hybrids is rated slightly lower than the three most popular inbreds in the wet season and comparable (within a range) in the dry season, but while the hybrids are considered moderately susceptible to insect attack, they are rated as resistant to blast bacterial blight. The fact that farmers collectively have selected these high- potential cultivars as popular varieties suggests, as expected, that they care about agronomic performance.

Previously, it was reported that Rc132H (SL-8H) was the only hybrid widely adopted by farmers in the Central Luzon Loop Survey [14]. Our

survey confirms that this seed, which is a commercial hybrid marketed by SL-Agritech, was currently one of the most popular hybrids in both Mu~noz and Zaragoza. A few other commercial hybrids had captured a small market share in Mu~noz, notably Arize Bigante/Bigante Plus (Bayer), SL-7 and SL-9 (SL-Agritech). We did not observe any plantings of public hybrids.

For a simple indicator of social learning, we asked respondents to name the varieties that they considered to be popular in their locality, regardless of whether they themselves had planted those varieties. The data are presented in Figs. 7 and 8. Many farmers correctly identified the most popular varieties grown locally, although a few cited varieties that were actually planted by few or no farmers in our survey.

The difference in agricultural didactics was manifested more in farmers’ perceptions than their actual seed choices. Many farmers in Mu~noz overestimated the popularity of commercial hybrids, an obser-vation borne out in several interviews in which farmers claimed their neighbours to be switching to hybrids in significant numbers. Some farmers in Mu~noz mentioned hybrids that had actually been cultivated by fewer than five farmers in our survey. Farmers who themselves cultivated hybrids were particularly inclined to believe that many of their neighbours were switching over from inbreds. At the same time, Mu~noz farmers as a group seem to have substantially underestimated the popularity of the real uso seed, which was an inbred variety (Rc222). Perceptions of the popularity of Rc216, which was widely appreciated for its taste and cooking qualities, were more accurate.

Zaragoza farmers also tended to overestimate the popularity of hy-brids, but the number of farmers who mentioned the popular inbred varieties Rc222, Rc216 and Rc160 quite closely tracked the proportion of farmers who actually planted these varieties. The generally less ac-curate perceptions of Mu~noz farmers are likely due to the greater in-tensity of their exposure to the influence of didacts in the vicinity of PhilRice, including the concentration of numerous seed dealers as well as the promotional activities of commercial seed companies.

To explore a possible relationship between the size of a farmer’s land area and their choice of seeds, we looked at whether larger farmers are more likely to plant multiple varieties (Fig. 6). The Kernel density esti-mation of the size of landholding (calculated using the combined total sample populations of Mu~noz and Zaragoza)7 showed that the great majority of farmers cultivated less than 2.5 ha of land (average ¼ 2.33 ha; min ¼ 0.25 ha; max ¼ 18 ha). We further categorised the farmers into two types, sorted according to the size of their seed portfolio in the past year. Regression analyses confirmed that farmers in both Mu~noz and Zaragoza who had planted fewer than three varieties in the past year (type 1), were less likely to have a large landholding (coefficients: 0.200 and � 0.447, respectively). Farmers who had planted three or more va-rieties (type 2) were more likely to cultivate a larger land area in both sites (coef. 0.200 in Mu~noz; 0.447 in Zaragoza). This insight makes intuitive sense, as farmers with larger land area are more likely to have multiple rice plots, and thus to have the opportunity to plant multiple varieties. However, we did not detect any significant correlation be-tween farmers’ landholding size and their likelihood of planting the most popular seeds in our survey, i.e. Rc 222 and Rc 216 in Mu~noz and Rc 132H, Rc 160 and Rc 222 in Zaragoza (data not shown). Similarly, we found no statistically significant differences between larger and smaller farmers in terms of their propensity to have planted hybrid seeds (data not shown). Furthermore, ownership or tenancy of land (see Table 1) was not a statistically significant determinant of the likelihood of planting hybrid seeds (data not shown). These insights lead us to conclude that class and wealth are not drivers of variety choice.

To monitor the speed of seed adoption we asked farmers when they had first planted each of their current varieties, and to monitor the rate at which farmers switched seeds we asked which seeds they had

Table 1 Survey sample characteristics.

Mu~noz Zaragoza

Households (n) 65 50 Ave. age of head of hh. (years) 56 56

Owners 66% 82% Tenants 34% 16%

Ave. total farm area (Ha) 2.24 2.51 Wet season rice cultivation 2.03 2.20 Dry season rice cultivation 2.15 2.51

Table 2 Seasonal difference in type of rice plantings in Mu~noz and Zaragoza 2013–14.

Munoz number of plantings* (number of farmers)

Zaragoza number of plantings* (number of farmers)

Season inbred hybrid Total Season inbred hybrid Total

wet 67 (56) 13 (10)

80 (65)

wet 45 (41)

3 (3) 48 (43)

dry 45 (38) 30 (29)

75 (59)

dry 26 (26)

26 (26)

52 (48)

Total 112 (60)

43 (32)

155 (65)

Total 71 (41)

29 (27)

100 (50)

* Pearson X2 is significant at p-value < .001 NOTE: Some farmers planted more than one type, hence no. plantings > no. farmers.

7 We used a transformation variable (i.e. logarithm of the total land size) to improve the fitness of the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model.

D. Glover et al.

Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101227

7

abandoned within the past five years. The data on when farmers had first planted their current varieties is presented in Figs. 9–12. The trends indicate that the rice varieties that are currently popular among the surveyed farmers have risen to their current prominence fairly steadily, over the course of several years. The shape of the curves for the most popular seeds suggests that they might have reached a peak of popu-larity around 2014, but, if so, our quantitative data and interviews with farmers suggest that the prospective decline in plantings of these vari-eties would be gradual rather than steep. Our study generally agrees with the insights of successive rounds of the RBFHS, which indicated that farmers replace their rice varieties approximately once a decade [16].

The data relating to abandoned seeds is presented in Tables 4 and 5. This data relies on farmer recall and we noted that some farmers responded with seeds they had last planted much longer ago than five years. Thus, the question may have been interpreted inconsistently and

therefore the data should not be over-interpreted. However, it sheds some useful light on the rate at which farmers have switched varieties and their motivations for doing so.

The data for Mu~noz confirms that many of the most frequently abandoned varieties over the past five years were rarely planted in 2013–14, or did not feature in the seed inventory at all during the survey period. An exception is Rc160, which is still a popular seed today but is evidently declining in popularity. It is also interesting to note that the two currently most popular inbreds (Rc216, Rc222) also feature in Table 4, but not in the most recent years. We believe that Rc216 is declining from the peak of its popularity, but the reason for nine farmers to abandon Rc222 in 2009 are unclear. These may have been experi-mental plantings where the farmer decided not to continue planting the seed. Two popular hybrids (Rc124H [Bigante] and Rc132H [SL-8H]) also appear in the full list of abandoned seeds, but at a low frequency (data not shown). Farmers mentioned various, often vague reasons for

Fig. 4. Rice plantings in Mu~noz (disaggregated by dry and wet season 2013–14). Note: Includes seeds planted by at least 5% of the sampled farmers.

Fig. 5. Rice plantings in Zaragoza (disaggregated by dry and wet season 2013–14). Note: Includes seeds planted by at least 5% of the sampled farmers.

D. Glover et al.

Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101227

8

abandoning their former seeds. In Zaragoza, the pattern of seed abandonment seems to be more

scattered and diffuse than in Mu~noz (Table 5). Only one variety (Rc160) was reported abandoned by more than three of the surveyed farmers in any of the past five years. As in Mu~noz, the two most popular seeds at the time of the survey (Rc160 and Rc216) appear in the list of abandoned seeds as well; however, unlike in Mu~noz, the rate of abandonment was low and not concentrated in a particular year. This pattern of steadier, less turbulent change may reflect a different combination of environ-mental, social and didactic learning in Zaragoza compared to Mu~noz.

The reasons farmers gave for abandoning their former varieties are hard to interpret. Often, farmers would offer the same, often rather vague and generic explanations for dropping several different varieties that they no longer planted. Equally often, farmers might offer multiple reasons for abandoning the same variety, which may suggest that their decision was based on an unquantifiable cumulation of impressions about the seed’s performance in the round. Interviews with farmers suggested that many of them had internalised expert recommendations that they ought to switch varieties after an interval of several years, so that their reasons for abandoning an old seed were not necessarily as compelling, as a motive, as the belief that it was time to try something new, along with the expectation, which was often informed by speaking to neighbours and/or observing their rice fields, that newer varieties coming onto the market possessed superior traits, usually including a higher yield potential. This interpretation suggests that the farmers’ reasoning was informed by a blend of environmental, didactic and social learning, without one of these mechanisms dominating.

For an indicator of didactic learning, we asked farmers about the source of seed for each of their plantings. We anticipated that farmers’ variety choices might be influenced by the advice of their seed supplier. Again, the two survey sites differed (Table 6). In Mu~noz, 96 out of 155 plantings used seed sourced from seed centres (private sector input dealers). Far behind the seed centres, the municipal DA, transnational seed companies, farmers’ cooperatives and saved seeds accounted for roughly equal proportions of total plantings in Mu~noz. Few plantings used seed supplied directly by PhilRice or IRRI. In Zaragoza, most seed was sourced either from private seed centres or the local DA, in equal proportions (44 plantings each out of 100). Handfuls of farmers obtained seed from several other sources, including their own supplies of saved seed, a farmers’ cooperative, a transnational seed company, or a public research institute (PhilRice or IRRI). In two cases, tenant farmers used seed supplied by their landlord, and did not know the source.

The data on seed sources in Table 6 indicates, as we expected, some differences between the seed systems in Mu~noz and Zaragoza. Seed centres and municipal agriculture offices are likely to influence farmers’ learning in both sites, but in Mu~noz the private seed suppliers are clearly more important than they are in Zaragoza. At the same time, trans-national seed companies and farmers’ cooperatives are also more important sources of seed in Mu~noz than they are in Zaragoza. Farmers in Zaragoza rely more heavily on the local DA as a source of seed.

PhilRice and IRRI probably do not exert a strong influence on seed choice at the point of sale, in either location. If they do influence farmers’ seed choices, this effect is likely to be indirect, through the programmes of training and extension activities and the advice services run by these two organisations, and through their promotional activities around the new rice varieties which they develop and release.

Finally, it is interesting to note the greater importance of farmers’ own saved seed in Mu~noz compared to Zaragoza, surprising in the light of the apparently high degree of penetration of commercially supplied seed in Mu~noz.

6. Discussion

Rice seed choices in Nueva Ecija clearly lack the pattern of unstable herding seen in Telangana cotton farming because of the more func-tional information environment. Varietal testing and seed registration Ta

ble

3 Ch

arac

teri

stic

s of

the

five

mos

t pop

ular

inbr

ed a

nd h

ybri

d ri

ce v

arie

ties

in M

u~ noz

and

Zar

agoz

a (2

015)

.

Year

A

ppro

ved

NSI

C Re

gist

ratio

n

Num

ber

Vari

ety

N

ame

Type

of

Vari

ety

Ow

ner/

Br

eede

r Yi

eld

(t

/ha)

M

atur

ity

(DA

S)

Plan

t H

eigh

t (cm

) Re

actio

n

to P

est

Reac

tion

to D

isea

ses

DS

WS

DS

WS

DS

WS

Gre

en

Leaf

hopp

er

Brow

n

Plan

thop

per

Stem

Bo

rer

Who

rl

Mag

got

Rice

Bl

ack

Bug

Whi

tehe

ads

Dea

dhea

rts

Blas

t Ba

cter

ial

Blig

ht

Bact

eria

l Le

af

Blig

ht

Shea

th

Blig

ht

Tung

ro

2006

N

SIC

2006

Rc1

60

Tubi

gan

14

Inbr

ed

PhilR

ice

6.28

5 7.

138

107

107

92

100

I S

S

MR

I

I S

S 20

09

NSI

C 20

09 R

c216

Tu

biga

n 17

In

bred

Ph

ilRic

e 4.

922

6.40

8 10

4 10

4 77

96

M

R M

R I

M

R

S I

S S

2009

N

SIC

2009

Rc2

22

Tubi

gan

18

Inbr

ed

IRRI

5.

834

6.62

8 10

6 10

6 94

10

2 M

R M

R I

M

R

I I

S S

2004

N

SIC

2004

Rc1

24H

M

estis

o 4/

Biga

nte

Hyb

rid

Baye

r

Crop

Sci

ence

5.

673

5.66

9 11

8 11

8 10

6 10

9 M

S M

S I

I

R I

I S

2004

N

SIC

2004

Rc1

32H

M

estis

o 6/

SL-8

H

Hyb

rid

SL A

grite

ch

5.97

6 5.

847

115

111

102

112

I M

S I

M

S

R I

I S

Key:

DA

S ¼

days

afte

r so

win

g; D

S ¼

dry

seas

on; W

S ¼

wet

sea

son;

MR ¼

mod

erat

ely

resi

stan

t; R ¼

resi

stan

t; M

S ¼

mod

erat

ely

susc

eptib

le; S

¼su

scep

tible

; I ¼

inte

rmed

iate

. So

urce

: Nat

iona

l See

d In

dust

ry C

ounc

il of

the

Phili

ppin

es h

ttp:

//ns

eedc

ounc

il.bp

insi

cpvp

o.co

m.p

h/do

wnl

oada

bles

/nsi

c-ri

ce.x

lsx

(acc

esse

d 11

Nov

embe

r 20

16).

D. Glover et al.

Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101227

9

are governed by a competent authority which maintains records of the rice varieties approved for cultivation in the Philippines, including their agronomic characteristics and suitability for different growing condi-tions (e.g. http://nseedcouncil.bpinsicpvpo.com.ph/downloadables/nsi c-rice.xlsx). Information about the agronomic characteristics of rice varieties is widely available to farmers through services such as the Pinoy Rice Knowledge Bank (http://www.pinoyrice.com/rice-v arieties/) and the IRRI Rice Knowledge Bank (http://www.knowledge bank.irri.org/country-specific/asia/rice-knowledge-for-philippines). The accessibility and reliability of this authoritative information makes the seed market and its information environment for rice in Nueva Ecija

quite different from that for cotton in Telangana, but somewhat more like that for rice in the Indian state. Farmers could name the seeds they were planting and knew something about their characteristics and suitability for different seasons and growing areas. They had their in-dividual opinions about cultivars, which did not always align closely with their neighbours’ views, and they generally relied on their own judgements when choosing which new varieties to plant. Farmers generally planted the same seed over several seasons and gained some experience with their chosen varieties before carefully selecting a new one after several years. Most of the varieties in circulation had been available on the market for several seasons and their characteristics

Fig. 6. The relationship between farm size and the likelihood of planting multiple rice varieties.

Fig. 7. Perceived popularity compared with actual rice plantings in 2015 (Mu~noz). Note: Some farmers mentioned multiple varieties they believed to be popular in the locality, therefore total mentions (perceived popularity) > total plantings (actual popularity).

D. Glover et al.

Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101227

10

were known. Farmers often knew their seed suppliers well – sometimes the growers too – and had confidence in them. In general, farmers seemed to have access to a range of broadly reliable sources of infor-mation about different seed varieties available on the market and their expected performance characteristics. These included PhilRice, large agribusiness companies, seed dealers, the DA, farmers’ cooperatives, media and social media. Many farmers we interviewed and surveyed had participated in more than one of the training seminars and field days organised by PhilRice, the DA and/or one of the large agribusinesses.

We did find a moderate rate of churning in seed selection. While certain varieties, such as Rc216 and Rc222, are prominent in the local seed system, their dominance is not overwhelming. The popularity of Rc160 appears to have emerged and peaked gradually over a period of several seasons, rather than leaping suddenly to the top of the league

table and declining precipitously within a short period. Some varieties that have been on the market for a decade or more are still planted by some farmers. There is definitely awareness and interest in uso seeds – such as Rc222 at the time of our survey – and some degree of faddishness in local seed choices. However, the popularity of Rc222 was nothing like the peak seeds recorded in Warangal, where one cotton brand would sometimes account for 75% of seed choices in a village [21].

While farmers generally appreciated Rc222 for its yield performance, several told us that they preferred other varieties for consumer qualities. One farmer in Mu~noz was growing three of the most popular inbred varieties and noted that they had different merits. Rc222 yielded well and was not very attractive to insects, whereas Rc216 and Rc160 were both in demand on the market – the former because of its long grains and good outturn from milling, the latter thanks to its soft, glutinous

Fig. 8. Perceived popularity compared with actual rice plantings in 2015 (Zaragoza). Note: Some farmers mentioned multiple varieties they believed to be popular in the locality, therefore total mentions (perceived popularity) > total plantings (actual popularity).

Fig. 9. Trends in plantings of currently most popular seeds (Mu~noz, wet season 2014), 2002–2014.

D. Glover et al.

Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101227

11

character and good flavour that were appreciated by consumers.8 Rc160 was a popular inbred variety, valued for its aroma, which meant that it commanded a higher price than Rc222 on the market.9

We did not find strong indications that farmers were allowing their decision-making to be influenced excessively by off-farm didacts or influential neighbours. However, there were some signals in our data to show that advertising and promotion activities by public bodies and private seed companies had influenced farmers’ views on hybrids and exaggerated their perceptions about their local popularity. Nonetheless, many farmers had quite accurate perceptions about the varieties being planted by their peers, even though they were not necessarily planting the same varieties themselves.

Some farmers noted that subsidies from the DA influenced their seed choices to some extent, but many of the farmers we interviewed and surveyed were planting varieties without a subsidy and did not mention subsidies as a key determinant of their decision making. The quantity of subsidised seed available to each grower was limited, so each farmer still needed to invest his or her own resources as well. Some farmers had obtained inbred varieties with a subsidy from the DA, but the Depart-ment was also using subsidies to encourage the uptake of hybrids (spe-cifically SL-8, at the time of our study). However, a farmer choosing hybrids would need to commit to a higher investment overall. Besides, farmers were aware that hybrids were not considered an ideal choice for low-lying plots of land, for cultivation in the wet season, or dry-season cultivation without irrigation. Together, these factors meant that gov-ernment subsidies were not a decisive influence over many farmers’ seed choices.

Fig. 10. Trends in plantings of currently most popular seeds (Mu~noz, dry season 2014), 2003–2014.

Fig. 11. Trends in popularity of currently most popular seeds (Zaragoza, wet season 2014), 2003–2014.

8 Interview, farmer, Barangay Maligaya, Mu~noz, 4 December 2014. 9 Interview, wife of a farmer, Barangay Santa Lucia Old, Zaragoza, 26 June

2015.

D. Glover et al.

Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101227

12

7. Conclusions and implications

What could be the implications for the likelihood that Nueva Ecija rice farmers will plant GR varieties, if and when these are commercial-ised? Most farmers replenish their seed stocks every few years, from the many seed suppliers in the formal market. They take these opportunities to switch to new varieties. This could create windows of opportunity for new GR cultivars to enter the market. But would farmers choose to grow the new varieties? Almost all the farmers in our survey consumed the rice they grew as well as producing grain or seed for the market. They are personally interested, both in the eating qualities and nutritional

content of the rice varieties they grow, and in the size of the potential market. The questions remain, then, whether they themselves would want to eat a beta carotene-enhanced rice, and whether they would perceive a sufficient demand from consumers for such a product. The problems are that these farmers and their families are not themselves the principal target population of people vulnerable to VAD, and meanwhile the people who could theoretically benefit from a beta carotene- enriched rice do not constitute a large or prosperous market.

The Philippine government or other agencies might choose to offer incentives to promote GR. Incentive programmes could take several forms, including producer subsidies, consumer subsidies, or creating a

Fig. 12. Trends in popularity of currently most popular seeds (Zaragoza, dry season 2014), 2003–2014.

Table 4 Abandoned varieties in Mu~noz (selective data presented for freq. � 4 over 5 years).

Name Released 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Total Reason(s) for abandoning

PSB Rc 82 2000 3 9 1 13 Susceptible to diseases (29%) PSB Rc 64 1997 10 10 Poor yield attribute (40%) PSB Rc 18 1994 16 16 Susceptible to diseases, poor yield attributes (19%) PSB Rc 28 1995 5 5 Poor yield attributes (33%) PSB Rc 14 1992 3 3 6 Poor yield attribute, no seeds available (29%) NSIC Rc 222a 2009 9 9 Poor grain recovery, poor yield attributes (20%) PSB Rc 10 1992 6 6 No seeds available (33%) NSIC Rc 216b 2009 5 10 15 No seeds available, susceptible to diseases (29%) NSIC Rc 160 2007 17 17 No seeds available (20%) NSIC Rc 152 2007 8 8 Poor yield attribute (63%) NSIC Rc 138 2006 4 4 Landlord’s choice, preference for hybrid (25%)

a Most planted seed in our survey. b Second most planted seed in our survey.

Table 5 Abandoned varieties in Zaragoza (selective data presented for freq. � 4 over 5 years).

Name Released 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Total Reason(s) for abandoning

PSB Rc 10 1992 4 1 2 2 9 Poor yield attribute (20%) PSB Rc 64 1997 3 2 5 No seeds available (33%) NSIC Rc 160a 2007 2 1 3 1 4 11 Poor yield attribute, wilting (31%) NSIC Rc 216b 2009 1 1 1 3 2 8 For crop rotation (33%) NSIC Rc 128 2004 1 1 1 2 5 No seeds available (27%) NSIC Rc 240 – 1 2 1 4 No seeds available (67%) NSIC Rc 122 2003 1 1 2 4 Susceptible to diseases (29%) PSB Rc 18 1994 3 2 5 Poor yield attribute (25%)

a Most planted seed in our survey. b Second most planted seed in our survey.

D. Glover et al.

Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101227

13

guaranteed market. Seed subsidies are very commonly used to promote the uptake of improved crop varieties, especially hybrids (as well as to cultivate political interests). The symbolic importance of GR as an icon of transgenic crops’ potential to alleviate poverty and hunger could create a powerful motivation to ensure that the seeds are launched successfully and seen to be popular. Both PhilRice and IRRI have been active in didactic learning on rice hybrids. Given their deep involvement in its development and testing, we would expect them to promote GR varieties energetically. However, Nueva Ecija rice farmers clearly have their own views on what is good to plant, and are not always swayed by promotional campaigns or subsidies. As we discussed in section 3, the track record of government efforts to promote the uptake of hybrid rice varieties has not been particularly impressive. Though there are signs that hybrids from the private sector are beginning to make stronger inroads into the rice seed market in Nueva Ecija, the history of hybrid promotion campaigns suggests it would be a mistake to assume that GR varieties would necessarily spread rapidly, or spontaneously, once released.

In a 2003 survey, Chong encountered farmer concern about the marketability of Golden Rice and suggested the farmers be given ‘mar-keting know-how’ [39], p. 972. But since the only added value in GR is a potential mitigation of a nutritional malady affecting a small percentage of the poorest people in the country, it is doubtful that even unlimited marketing savvy could make this product especially lucrative. Offering farmers a subsidy to plant GR has been suggested for Bangladesh [12]. But even if subsidies lead to adoption, our study raises doubts about how strongly motivated farmers would be to continue planting GR varieties over a longer term, in the absence of ongoing inducements to do so. That might depend on whether the Golden trait is introduced into a succes-sion of elite cultivars that possess agronomic traits the farmers value. Farmers’ ongoing enthusiasm to plant GR varieties and the intensity of breeders’ efforts to introgress the Golden trait into new rice cultivars will likely depend on whether there is a perceived demand for beta carotene-enriched rice grains among a critical mass of consumers.

The next challenge is that it may yet require some years of devel-opment before commercial GR seeds are ready to be released to farmers. To date, the ‘golden’ transgenic trait has been transferred into IR-64 and Rc82, two aging rice varieties that are no longer competitive in yield, which are planted nowadays by very few farmers. It is difficult to ima-gine how a golden version of either of these varieties would become a widely adopted uso seed, even with the weight of energetic promotion behind them. We assume that, to be commercially viable and attractive to the rice farmers of Nueva Ecija, GR will have to be introgressed into popular and agronomically high-performing cultivars, such as the suc-cessors of Rc216 and Rc222. The GR trait would need to be incorporated without seriously affecting the yield potential or other desirable quali-ties of the varieties concerned (as Chong [39], p. 971) concluded from his survey of Nueva Ecija rice farmers). This breeding process will

inevitably take time. The well-known challenges of yield lag and yield drag mean that the first generations of GR cultivars may well display a poorer yield performance compared to elite, non-GR rice varieties that are available on the market at the same time.10 Eventually, if successful, the new transgenic GR traits may be fully integrated into public and private breeding programmes and could be used to develop from scratch subsequent generations of high-performing commercial cultivars.

In short, our research suggests that the prospective uptake of GR by commercial rice farmers in Nueva Ecija is by no means certain. As well as ensuring that the new varieties perform well in the field, encouraging the spread of GR may require specific inducements to be offered to farmers. In the meantime, public health programmes to drive down levels of VAD may make GR largely redundant before it reaches the target population.

In this paper, we have extended previous scholarship that used farmers’ seed choices as a lens to examine agricultural decision making and the simultaneous, interacting mechanisms of environmental, social and didactic learning that influence it. The comparison of the case of rice in Nueva Ecija with previous research on rice and cotton farming sys-tems in Telangana allowed us to confirm the salience of practical, bio-logical, political-economic, regulatory and institutional factors, which explain why there are differences and similarities between the learning and skilling environments that prevail in these different settings or ‘cropscapes’ [40]. Our discussion showed that these factors include, for example, the degree to which cultivation of particular crops locally is well established and institutionalised, or newly introduced; the alter-native destinations of crops used for food or other products, such as fibre; the organisation of input and output markets for different crops; biological and agronomic characteristics of different crop species and cultivars, including differences between inbreds and hybrids; differences in the availability, reliability and circulation of information and knowledge relating to different crops and their cultivation; differences in regulatory and policy frameworks; the commercial intensity of input and output marketing, including the presence of modern brand-based marketing for some crops and cultivars and its relative absence for other crops; and so on.

Our analysis has also highlighted an important structural difference between environmental learning on one hand, and social and didactic learning on the other. Compared to the latter, environmental learning demands, in principle, more time and an opportunity to observe and digest empirical payoff information. It requires a trial before a decision can be made, but the information generated is first-hand and may be considered more reliable (taking into account the local and temporal specificity of the observed performance). Social learning and didactic learning may be quicker, easier and cheaper to obtain and, importantly, they can be used to acquire knowledge before committing to a trial. They may both involve elements of environmental learning, in so far as they could include opportunities to observe the performance of crops in the field (e.g. on a neighbour’s farm or a demonstration plot), but brief snapshots like these, accompanied by interpretive commentary from a neighbour, technician or sales agent [41], may not be as rich with in-formation or as independently verifiable as personal experience with planting, cultivating and harvesting one’s own crop.

Table 6 Source of seeds.

Seed Providers Munoz Zaragoza

(n ¼ 155) (n ¼ 100)

Seed centre/dealer 96 44 DA LGUa 11 44 Transnational 15 1 Cooperative 4 – PhilRice/IRRI 6 1 Farmer’s own 14 5 Other farmers 9 3 Don’t know 2

Note: n ¼ plantings, as defined in this paper. Some farmers, who reported planting more than one variety during the period surveyed, procured seeds from multiple providers/sources.

a Department of Agriculture – Local Government Unit providing subsidised seeds.

10 Yield lag is a comparatively poor yield performance that arises because of the time it takes to develop a viable new cultivar expressing a novel trait. In the interim, newer elite varieties may be released that have a superior yield po-tential. Yield drag is the term used to describe a reduction in intrinsic yield performance that arises when the introduction or amplification of a functional trait, such as an improved resistance to disease, impairs the yield potential of the new cultivar compared to the original parent material. Over time, as the novel trait is incorporated into a breeding programme and combined with newer background germplasm, both yield lag and yield drag may be overcome or reduced.

D. Glover et al.

Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101227

14

Contributions

The study was conceived by GDS, who raised the funds. The seed survey was designed and led by DG and carried out by a field survey team (see acknowledgements). DG and GDS also conducted interviews with farmers, with assistance from a translator (see acknowledgements). Data cleaning was done by SKK and DG. SKK carried out data analysis and produced figures and tables under DG’s guidance. The paper was written by DG and GDS.

Funding

This work was supported by the John Templeton Foundation initiative, ‘Can GM Crops Help to Feed the World?’ Additional support was provided by the ESRC STEPS Centre at Sussex University, UK. The funders were not involved in the design of the study, the collection, analysis or interpretation of the data, writing the paper, or the decision to submit this article for publication.

Declaration of competing interest

None.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Dominic Glover: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Sung Kyu Kim: Validation, Formal analysis, Data curation. Glenn Davis Stone: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing - review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of our field survey team-members Karl Jet Alonzo, Angelica Serdinola and Moises Cipriano, ably led by Bong Soriano, who also organised logistics and acted as an interpreter during interviews. We are also grateful to Jaime Manalo and Julieta Parinas at PhilRice, Rica Joy Flor, Reianne Quilloy, Alice Laborte and Neale Paguirigan at IRRI, and Jo~ao Vasco Silva (Wageningen University, NL). Finally, we thank the journal’s Editor-in- Chief, Charla Griffy Brown, and two anonymous reviewers, who offered helpful comments and criticisms on an earlier draft of this paper.

Appendix A

Table A1 Seed inventory (Mu~noz, 2013–14)

NSIC Registration Number

Year Approved

Variety Name Experimental/Line Name

Type of Variety

Owner/Breeder Brand name Total plantings

WS DS

PSB 1994 Rc 18 1994 Ala IR51672-6662-2-1-2-3 Inbred IRRI 1 1 NSIC 2003 Rc 122 2003 Angelica IR61979-138-1-3-2-3 Inbred IRRI 1 1 NSIC 2004 Rc 124H 2004 Mestiso 4 BIGANTE Hybrid Bayer Crop

Science Arize Bigante 4 1 3

NSIC 2004 Rc 132H 2004 Mestiso 6 SL 8H Hybrid SL Agritech SL-8H 9 1 8 NSIC 2006 Rc 152 2006 Tubigan 10 PR30138-21-2 Inbred PhilRice 1 1 NSIC 2006 Rc 160 2006 Tubigan 14 PR30536-B-48-2 Inbred PhilRice 4 2 2 NSIC 2007 Rc 168H 2007 Mestiso 11 BCS 064 Hybrid Bayer Crop

Science Arize H64 3 3

NSIC 2009 Rc 200H 2009 Mestiso 18 BCS 065 Hybrid Bayer Crop Science

Arize Tej 1 1

NSIC 2009 Rc 216 2009 Tubigan 17 PR34141-38-1-J2 Inbred PhilRice 21 15 6 NSIC 2009 Rc 220SR 2009 Japonica 1 IR81551-15-1-2-3 (J) Inbred IRRI 1 1 NSIC 2009 Rc 222 2009 Tubigan 18 IR78581-12-3-2-2 Inbred IRRI 64 37 27 NSIC 2010 Rc 224 2010 Tubigan 19 PR31091-17-3-1 Inbred PhilRice 2 1 1 NSIC 2010 Rc 236H 2010 Mestiso 28 SW 836 Hybrid SEEDWORKS US-88 1 1 NSIC 2011 Rc 238 2011 Tubigan 21 IR78555-68-3-3-3 Inbred IRRI 1 1 NSIC 2013 Rc 310 2013 Mestiso 44 H6129 Hybrid Bayer Crop

Science 1 1

NSIC 2013 Rc 314H 2013 Mestiso 46 INH10001 Hybrid Bayer Crop Science

Arize Bigante Plus

8 6 2

IR-64 1985 IR-64 Inbred IRRI 2 2 ? ? Diamond X ? Inbred? 2 2 ? ? ERB ? Inbred? 2 1 1 ? ? Glutinous ? Glutinous 1 1 ? ? IL-29 ? Inbred? 2 2 ? ? IR-27 ? Inbred IRRI 1 1 ? ? L-29 ? Inbred? 2 1 1 ? ? M240 ? Inbred? 1 1 ? ? PHB ? Hybrid Pioneer PHB 2 2 2 ? ? SL-9H ? Hybrid SL Agritech SL-9H 4 4 ? ? SL-18H ? Hybrid SL Agritech SL-18H 2 1 1 ? ? SL-7H ? Hybrid SL Agritech SL-7H 5 5 ? ? Super 75 ? Inbred? 1 1 ? ? Super 82 ? Inbred? 1 1 ? ? Double

Diamond ? Inbred? 1 1

? ? Mestiso Hybrid ? Hybrid 2 1 ? ? Red Rice ? Inbred? 1 1 ? ? Super Diamond ? Inbred? 1 1

D. Glover et al.

Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101227

15

Appendix B

Table A2 Seed inventory (Zaragoza, 2013–14).

NSIC Registration Number

Year Approved

Variety Name

Experimental/Line Name

Type of Variety

Owner/Breeder Brand name

Total plantings

WS DS

PSB 1994 Rc 18 1994 Ala IR51672-6662-2-1-2-3 Inbred IRRI 1 1 NSIC 2003 Rc 122 2003 Angelica IR61979-138-1-3-2-3 Inbred IRRI 1 1 NSIC 2004 Rc 124H 2004 Mestiso 4 BIGANTE Hybrid Bayer Crop

Science Bigante 1 1

NSIC 2004 Rc 128 2004 Mabango 1 PR26645-B-7 (A) Inbred PhilRice 3 1 2 NSIC 2004 Rc 132H 2004 Mestiso 6 SL 8H Hybrid SL Agritech SL-8H 27 2 25 NSIC 2006 Rc 160 2006 Tubigan 14 PR30536-B-48-2 Inbred PhilRice 15 8 7 NSIC 2009 Rc 216 2009 Tubigan 17 PR34141-38-1-J2 Inbred PhilRice 10 8 2 NSIC 2009 Rc 222 2009 Tubigan 18 IR78581-12-3-2-2 Inbred IRRI 26 16 10 NSIC 2011 Rc 240 2011 Tubigan 22 PR31132-B-1-1-1-3-3 Inbred PhilRice 3 2 1 NSIC 2012 Rc 300 2012 Tubigan 24 PR31379-2B-10-1-2-1-2 Inbred PhilRice 1 1 PSB 1963 C-18 Inbred UPLB 3 2 1 ? ? F2 F2 – 4 2 2 ? ? Diamond X 3 3 ? ? SL-9H Hybrid SL Agritech SL-9H 1 ? ? SL-7H Hybrid SL Agritech SL-7H 1 1

References

[1] Shun-Nan Chiang, Transecting the fall and rise of brown rice — the historic encounters of the global food system, nutrition science, and malnutrition in the Philippines [online first], Food Cult. Soc. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15528014.2019.1682889.

[2] Amanda C. Palmer, Siamusantu Ward, Justin Chileshe, Kerry J. Schulze, Maxwell Barffour, E Craft Neal, Ngosa Molobeka, Ng’andwe Kalungwana, Margia A. Arguello, Maithilee Mitra, Bess Caswell, Rolf DW. Klemm, Keith P. West Jr., Provitamin A–biofortified maize increases serum β-carotene, but not retinol, in marginally nourished children: a cluster-randomized trial in rural Zambia, Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 104 (1) (2016) 181–190, https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.116.132571.

[3] Ingo Potrykus, Lessons from the ‘Humanitarian Golden Rice’ project: regulation prevents development of public good genetically engineered crop products, N. Biotech. 27 (5) (2010) 466–472, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2010.07.012.

[4] G.D. Stone, D. Glover, Disembedding grain: Golden Rice, the green revolution, and heirloom seeds in the Philippines, Agric. Hum. Val. 33 (1) (2016) 87–102.

[5] Roukayatou Zimmermann, Matin Qaim, Potential health benefits of Golden Rice: a Philippine case study, Food Policy 29 (2) (2004) 147–168, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.foodpol.2004.03.001.

[6] A.J. Stein, H.P.S. Sachdev, M. Qaim, Potential impact and cost-effectiveness of Golden Rice, Nat. Biotechnol. 24 (10) (2006) 1200–1201.

[7] A.J. Stein, H.P.S. Sachdev, M. Qaim, Genetic engineering for the poor: Golden Rice and public health in India, World Dev. 36 (1) (2008) 144–158, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.02.013.

[8] J. Wesseler, S. Kaplan, D. Zilberman, The cost of delaying approval of Golden Rice, Agric. Resour. Econ. Update 17 (3) (2014) 1–3.

[9] Elise F. Talsma, Alida Melse-Boonstra, Inge D. Brouwer, Acceptance and adoption of biofortified crops in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review, Nutr. Rev. 75 (10) (2017) 798–829, https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nux037.

[10] IRRI. nd. "Why is Golden Rice needed in the Philippines since vitamin A deficiency is already decreasing?". http://irri.org/golden-rice/faqs/why-is-golden-rice- needed-in-the-philippines-since-vitamin-a-deficiency-is-already-decreasing.

[11] A.A. Gulles, Estimating the Proportion of Vitamin A Deficiency Among Children Aged 6 Months to 5 Years. Master Thesis, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines, 2008.

[12] Erik Stokstad, Bangladesh could be the first to cultivate Golden Rice, genetically altered to fight blindness, Science 366 (6468) (2019) 934.

[13] Uttam Deb, Returns to golden rice research in Bangladesh: an ex-ante analysis, in: Bangladesh Priorities Report, Copenhagen Consensus Center, Copenhagen, DK, 2016.

[14] Alice G. Laborte, Neale C. Paguirigan, Piedad F. Moya, Andrew Nelson, Adam H. Sparks, Glenn B. Gregorio, Farmers’ preference for rice traits: insights from farm surveys in central Luzon, Philippines, 1966-2012, PLoS One 10 (8) (2015), e0136562, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136562.

[15] Elma S. Mananesa, Richard D. Romanillos, Ernesto I. Bumatay, Central Luzon farmer’s acceptability and adoption of hybrid rice technology in their rice farming system, USM R D J. 20 (1) (2012) 97–110.

[16] C.C. Launio, G.O. Redondo, J.C. Beltran, Y. Morooka, Adoption and spatial diversity of later generation modern rice varieties in the Philippines, Agron. J. 100 (5) (2008) 1380–1389, https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2007.0297.

[17] Marc Jim Mariano, Renato Villano, Euan Fleming, Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of modern rice technologies and good management practices in the Philippines, Agric. Syst. 110 (2012) 41–53.

[18] Glenn Davis Stone, Andrew Flachs, Christine Diepenbrock, Rhythms of the herd: long term dynamics in seed choice by Indian farmers, Technol. Soc. 36 (2014) 26–38, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.10.003.

[19] Peggy F. Barlett, Agricultural Choice and Change: Decision Making in a Costa Rican Community, Rutgers Univ. Press, New Brunswick, NJ, 1982.

[20] Virginia D. Nazarea-Sandoval, Local Knowledge and Agricultural Decision Making in the Philippines: Class, Gender and Resistance, Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, 1995.

[21] G.D. Stone, Agricultural deskilling and the spread of genetically modified cotton in Warangal, Curr. Anthropol. 48 (1) (2007) 67–103.

[22] G.D. Stone, Field versus farm in Warangal: Bt cotton, higher yields, and larger questions, World Dev. 39 (3) (2011) 387–398, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. worlddev.2010.09.008.

[23] Glenn Davis Stone, Towards a general theory of agricultural knowledge production: environmental, social, and didactic learning, Cult. Agric. Food Environ. 38 (1) (2016) 5–17, https://doi.org/10.1111/cuag.12061.

[24] J. Sumberg, C. Okali, Farmers’ Experiments: Creating Local Knowledge, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, CO, USA, 1997.

[25] P. Richards, Farmers also experiment: a neglected intellectual resource in African science, Discov. Innovat. 1 (1) (1989) 19–25.

[26] A. Flachs, Cultivating Knowledge: the Production and Adaptation of Knowledge on Organic and GM Cotton Farms in Telangana, PhD, Department of Anthropology, Washington University in St Louis (WUSTL), USA, 2016.

[27] A. Flachs, G.D. Stone, C. Shaffer, Mapping knowledge: GIS as a tool for spatial modeling of patterns of Warangal cotton seed popularity and farmer decision- making, Hum. Ecol. 45 (2) (2017) 143–159, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-016- 9885-y.

[28] Andrew Flachs, Glenn Davis Stone, Farmer knowledge across the commodification spectrum: rice, cotton, and vegetables in Telangana, India, J. Agrar. Change 19 (4) (2018) 614–634, https://doi.org/10.1111/joac.12295.

[29] G.D. Stone, D. Glover, Disembedding grain: Golden Rice, the Green Revolution, and heirloom seeds in the Philippines, Agric. Hum. Val. 34 (1) (2017) 87–102, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016-9696-1.

[30] L. Carlisle, The Terrace Keepers, Stanford Social Innovation Review Fall, 2016 ([online]), https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_terrace_keepers. (Accessed 2 January 2020).

[31] D. Glover, G.D. Stone, Heirloom rice in Ifugao: an "anti-commodity" in the process of commodification, J. Peasant Stud. 45 (4) (2017) 776–804, https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03066150.2017.1284062.

[32] N. Cullather, Miracles of modernization: the Green Revolution and the apotheosis of technology, Dipl. Hist. 28 (2) (2004) 227–254, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 7709.2004.00407.x.

[33] J.P. Estudillo, O. Keijiro, Lessons from three decades of Green Revolution in the Philippines, Develop. Econ. 44 (2) (2006) 123–148, https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1746-1049.2006.00010.x.

[34] Jo~ao Vasco Silva, Pytrik Reidsmaa, Alice G. Laborte, Martin K. van Ittersum, Explaining rice yields and yield gaps in Central Luzon, Philippines: an application of stochastic frontier analysis and crop modelling, Eur. J. Agron. XX (XX) (2016) (XX-XX).

[35] Kloppenburg, Jack Ralph Jr., First the Seed: the Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology, second ed., Univ Wisconsin Press, Madison, 2004, pp. 1492–2000.

[36] Madonna C. Casimero, Nina Gracel B. Dimaano, Status of and prospects for hybrid rice commercialization in the Philippines, in: F. Xie, B. Hardy (Eds.), Accelerating Hybrid Rice Development, IRRI, Manila, 2009, pp. 651–664.

[37] C.C. David, The Philippine Hybrid Rice Program: a case for redesign and scaling down, in: PIDS Research Paper Series 2006-003, Philippine Institute for Development Studies, Makati City, PH, 2006.

D. Glover et al.

Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101227

16

[38] F.H. Bordey, J.M. Cabling, C.B. Casiwan, A.B. Mataia, R.G. Manalili, G.O. Redondo, Socioeconomic analysis of hybrid rice production in the Philippines, in: 12th Australian Agronomy Conference & 4th International Crop Science Congress, Brisbane, Australia, 26 September - 1 October 2004, 2004.

[39] Mark Chong, Acceptance of golden rice in the Philippine "rice bowl", Nat. Biotechnol. 21 (9) (2003) 971–972.

[40] Francesca Bray, Barbara Hahn, John Bosco Lourdusamy, Tiago Saraiva, Cropscapes and history, Transfers 9 (1) (2019) 20–41, https://doi.org/10.3167/ TRANS.2019.090103.

[41] G.D. Stone, Agriculture as spectacle, J. Political Ecol. 25 (1) (2018) 656–685, https://doi.org/10.2458/v25i1.22385.

[42] Food and Nutrition Research Inst. nd. Seventh National Nutrition Survey 2008- 2009: Department of Science and Technology (Philippines).

[43] C.G. Malabad, D.D. Apple Joy, P.J.C. Escanilla, M.B. Vargas, Contribution of vitamin A-fortification of processed foods to the status of vitamin A deficiency (VAD) in the Philippines, in: 44th FNRI Seminar Series, Generating Sustainable Food Resources for Food Security, Optimum Nutrition and Wellness, July 4-6, 2018, Century Park Hotel, Manila, Philippines, Department of Science and Technology, Government of the Philippines, 2018.

[44] James Wirth, Nicolai Petry, Sherry Tanumihardjo, Lisa Rogers, Erin McLean, Alison Greig, Greg Garrett, Rolf Klemm, Fabian Rohner, Vitamin A supplementation programs and country-level evidence of vitamin A deficiency, Nutrients 9 (3) (2017) 190.

[45] Mark Granovetter, Threshold models of collective behavior, Am. J. Sociol. 83 (6) (1978) 1420–1443.

[46] David Easley, Jon Kleinberg, Information cascades, in: Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Reasoning about a Highly Connected World, 2010.

[47] Sushil Bikhchandani, David Hirshleifer, Ivo Welch, Learning from the behavior of others: conformity, fads, and informational cascades, J. Econ. Perspect. 12 (1998) 151–170.

Dominic Glover is an interdisciplinary social science researcher specialising in the domain of technology, agriculture and agrarian change. His previous research has focused on the emergence and spread of new technologies, cultivation methods and farming practices through small-scale agricultural systems, including transgenic crops and alter-native methods of rice cultivation. He has performed, led and supervised field research in India, Nepal, the Philippines, Madagascar, Ethiopia and Kenya. His work draws on con-cepts and methodological approaches from disciplines including science and technology studies, geography, anthropology, sociology, political economy and history.

Sung Kyu Kim is Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex. His work focuses on ongoing debates about the Green Revolution and smallholder farming policy in developing countries. Sung Kyu explores the dynamic pro-cesses and multifaceted nature of farming and livelihood practices of smallholder farmers by using mixed methods and pathways approach.

Glenn Davis Stone is an anthropologist who studies the politics and ecology of food and agriculture, including smallholder, alternative, and capitalist industrial agriculture and agricultural biotechnology (GMOs). His ethnographic fieldwork has been in Nigeria, India, the Philippines and Appalachia, and in a biotechnology laboratory. Author of over 60 academic articles, he has been awarded fellowships by the Wenner-Gren Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the School for Advanced Research, and the Simon Guggenheim Foundation. He is past president of the Anthropology & Environment Society. He is currently Professor of Anthropology and Environmental Studies at Wash-ington University in St. Louis.

D. Glover et al.