maize production in sri lanka

Maize Production in Sri Lanka

N.F.C. Ranaweera

G.A.C. de Silva M.H.J.P. Fernando

and H.B. Hindagala

The CGPRT Centre

CGPRT No. 16

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The opinions expressed in signed articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the United Nations.

CGPRT NO. 16


N.F.C. Ranaweera G.A.C. de Silva

M.H.J.P. Fernando and H.B. Hindagala

The CGPRT Centre Regional Co-ordination Centre for Research and Development of Coarse Grains, Pulses, Roots and Tuber Crops in the Humid Tropics of Asia and the Pacific

v

Table of Contents

Page List of Tables and Figures ………………………………………………….... vii Preface ……………..……………………………………………………….... xi Acknowledgements ......................................................................................... xii Summary ......................................................................................................... xiii 1. Introduction .............................................................................................. 1

Objectives of the study ........................................................................ 1 Methodology ....................................................................................... 1 Organization of the report ................................................................... 3

2. Physical Characteristics of Sri Lanka and Features of the Small Farm

Sector ....................................................................................................... 5 Physical characteristics ........................................................................ 5 Small farm sector in Sri Lanka ............................................................ 7 Rainfed cropping in dry zone highland ............................................... 8

3. Maize Cultivation and Production in Sri Lanka ....................................... 9

Area under cultivation ......................................................................... 9 Production of maize ............................................................................. 9 Imports of maize .................................................................................. 11 Other subsidiary food crops ................................................................. 11 Marketing of maize ............................................................................. 12 Agricultural extension for maize ......................................................... 12

4. Maize Research in Sri Lanka ................................................................... 15

Earlier studies on maize ....................................................................... 15 Breeding .............................................................................................. 16 Agronomic investigations .................................................................... 18 Water requirements and irrigation studies ........................................... 21 Research activities - continuing planned breeding .............................. 21 Agronomic investigations .................................................................... 22

5. Characteristics of Moneragala District ..................................................... 23 Physical features .................................................................................. 23 Agricultural extension service ............................................................. 25

6. Results of the Socio-Economic Survey of Maize Cultivation .................. 27

Family Information .............................................................................. 27 Land, tenure, farm size ........................................................................ 30 Cropping calendar ............................................................................... 33 Cropping pattern .................................................................................. 35 Permanent crops .................................................................................. 38 Maize cultivation ................................................................................. 38

vi

Cost of cultivation ............................................................................... 47 Average yield of maize ........................................................................ 49 Crop losses .......................................................................................... 49 Returns on maize cultivation ............................................................... 49 Marketing of Maize ............................................................................. 49 Agricultural extension for maize ......................................................... 52

7. Statistical Analysis of Variables Effecting Maize Production ................. 53 Average production function for maize ............................................... 53 Technical efficiency in maize cultivation ............................................ 54 Correlation among variables ................................................................ 55

8. Available technology ............................................................................... 63

Available technology ........................................................................... 63 Constraints ........................................................................................... 63 Non-economic constraints ................................................................... 63 Economic constraints .......................................................................... 66 Constraints - overall effect .................................................................. 67

9. Available technology ............................................................................... 69 Glossary ........................................................................................................... 71 References ....................................................................................................... 73

vii

List of Tables and Figures

Tables Page 1.1 ASC areas selected and farmer sample sizes .......................................... 3 3.1 Main maize cultivation districts of Sri Lanka ......................................... 9 3.2 Extent of cultivation of maize in ASC districts ....................................... 10 3.3 Production of maize in Sri Lanka ........................................................... 10 3.4 Yield per hectare of maize ...................................................................... 11

3.5 Imports of maize ..................................................................................... 11 3.6 Cultivation of subsidiary food crops other than maize, maha season only 12 3.7 Production of subsidiary food crops other than maize, maha season only 12

4.1 Grain yield and agronomic data of eight local varieties of maize evaluated during the rainy season of 1981/1982 ................................... 16

4.2 Mean grain yield of two promising maize varieties evaluated at four

locations during the rainy season of 1974/1975 and seven locations in 1975/1976 and 1976/1977 ...................................................................... 17

4.3 Mean grain yield of early-maturing maize varieties evaluated at two

locations during the rainy season of 1982/1983 ..................................... 18 4.4 Mean grain yield of four quality protein maize varieties and one normal

variety evaluated at two locations during the rainy season of 1983/1984 .... 18 4.5 Grain yield of maize in simulated forest and bare fields at five nitrogen

levels ........................................................................................................ 19 5.1 Major and minor irrigation tanks in ASC areas ....................................... 24 5.2 Extent of major crops in Moneragala district ........................................... 25 5.3 Agricultural extension service staff in Moneragala district ..................... 25 6.1 Family composition ................................................................................. 27 6.2 Educational level of the farmers .............................................................. 28 6.3 Educational level of farmers' wives ......................................................... 28

viii

6.4 Educational level of children over 16 years of age .................................. 28 6.5 Participation of farmer and wife in activities of the farm ........................ 29 6.6 Participation of children in the activities of the farm................................ 29 6.7 Nature of outside employment of farmer ................................................. 30 6.8 Families reporting children with outside employment ............................. 30 6.9 Availability of different types of land ...................................................... 30 6.10 Tenurial status of lowland ....................................................................... 31 6.11 Average extent of lowland....................................................................... 31 6.12 Tenurial status of highland ...................................................................... 32 6.13 Average extent of highland ..................................................................... 32 6.14 Tenurial status of chena ........................................................................... 32 6.15 Average extent of chena .......................................................................... 33 6.16 Average farm size .................................................................................... 33 6.17 Cultivation of lowland under different types of irrigation ....................... 34 6.18 Lowland cultivation seasons .................................................................... 34 6.19 Lowland cultivation calendar .................................................................. 34 6.20 Highland cultivation calendar .................................................................. 35 6.21 Chena cultivation calendar ...................................................................... 35 6.22 Crops cultivated in lowland ..................................................................... 36 6.23 Cropping pattern in highland - 1984/1985 maha ..................................... 37 6.24 Extent of cultivation in highland ............................................................. 36 6.25 Cropping pattern in chena - 1984/1985 maha .......................................... 39 6.26 Permanent crops available in highland..................................................... 40 6.27 Permanent crops available in chena.......................................................... 41 6.28 Nature of maize crop stand - highland...................................................... 41

ix

6.29 Nature of maize crop stand - chena .......................................................... 41 6.30 Average extent of maize cultivation - highland ....................................... 42 6.31 Average extent of maize cultivation - chena ............................................ 42 6.32 Variety of maize cultivated - highland ..................................................... 43 6.33 Variety of maize cultivated - chena.......................................................... 43 6.34 Method of planting maize ........................................................................ 44 6.35 Source of seed - 1984/1985 maha season ................................................. 44 6.36 Number of seedings................................................................................. 45 6.37 Seed rate of maize ................................................................................... 45 6.38 Application of fertilizer ........................................................................... 45 6.39 Weed control in highland ......................................................................... 46 6.40 Weed control in chena.............................................................................. 46 6.41 Cost of cultivation of maize - highland .................................................... 48 6.42 Cost of cultivation of maize - chena......................................................... 48 6.43 Average yield of maize............................................................................. 49 6.44 Costs and returns in maize cultivation...................................................... 50 6.45 Home consumption and marketing of maize ............................................ 50 6.46 Time of marketing .................................................................................... 51 6.47 Ways of marketing maize......................................................................... 51 6.48 Effect of extension service ....................................................................... 52 7.1 Family size and land availability .............................................................. 56 7.2 Family size and land area ......................................................................... 56 7.3 Family size and area of maize cultivated.................................................. 57 7.4 Family size and maize stand in highland.................................................. 57 7.5 Family size and marketable surplus.......................................................... 58

x

7.6 Lowland extent and total extent of maize cultivated ................................ 58 7.7 Highland maize extent and maize productivity ........................................ 59 7.8 Chena maize extent and maize productivity............................................. 59 7.9 Total maize extent and maize stand in highland....................................... 59 7.10 Total maize area and marketable surplus.................................................. 60 7.11 Total maize area and farm gate price........................................................ 60 7.12 Labour use and maize productivity-highland ........................................... 60 7.13 Labour use and maize productivity - chena.............................................. 61 8.1 Net returns of alternate crops ................................................................... 66

Figures

1.1 Moneragala district. Agricultural Services Centres.................................. 2 1.2 Agro-ecological regions of Sri Lanka ...................................................... 6 1.3 Planting calendar for chena ...................................................................... 8

xi

Foreword

The regional research and development project RAS/82/002 is funded by the UNDP and is implemented by the FAO in co-operation with the ESCAP CGPRT Centre.

One of the objectives is to identify and analyse socio-economic constraints to increased production and efficient distribution, and to formulate strategies to exploit the economic, employment and nutritional potential of coarse grains and food legumes under varying farming systems.

The CGPRT Centre was requested to implement socio-economic studies in selected countries of Asia. Country studies were conducted in six countries: Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Nepal, the Philippines and Sri Lanka. Selection of crops was based on their importance for the individual countries.

Maize Production in Sri Lanka is the seventh in the series of country reports. This study reviews the small farm sector in Sri Lanka and provides an overview of maize cultivation, production and research in the country. The authors highlight the contraints that are facing the maize producer based on a survey in the Moneragala district of Sri Lanka.

According to the report, maize production is still below the national requirement and is cultivated at subsistence levels under the slash-and-burn system. Unless specific policy measures are applied, it is unlikely that production will increase. The authors outline a number of recommendations to increase the profitability of maize cultivation.

I would like to express our appreciation to the authors for their co-operation with CGPRT Centre in undertaking the maize production study in Sri Lanka. I would also like to thank the UNDP for its financial support.

I am pleased to present this report to the reader and I hope it will increase the awareness of the problems confronting upland agriculture in Sri Lanka. Shiro Okabe Director CGPRT Centre

xii

Acknowledgements

We wish to express our sincere thanks to many individuals who made this study possible.

Particularly, we gratefully acknowledge the untiring efforts of the following field officers who conducted the Field work under very difficult conditions: A.G. Abeysinghe, S. Mendis, M. Muthunayaka, Y.C. Piyaseeli, M. Wimalasena, A. Nadarajha and P. Mallawarachchi.

We also appreciate the services of Miss J.T.P. Gunawardena, for the computer analysis of the data.

N.F.C. Ranaweera

xiii

Summary

Maize is primarily a rainfed crop cultivated in the maha season in both settled and shifting (chena) types of highland cultivation. The primary sources of demand for maize are the rural farming population, where maize is consumed both on the cob and as flour and in the provender industry, where it is used in about 25% of the poultry feed manufactured. Maize is cultivated in all but six districts in Sri Lanka, but it is an important crop only in the districts of Anuradhapura, Ampara, Badulla, Moneragala, Matale and Batticaloa, where the area is over 2000 ha. These districts, popularly called "the maize belt", account for over 80% of the land planted to maize in the country. The national extent of maize is 23,000-28,000 ha and the annual production is around 35,000 t. There is a wide variation in yield among districts, ranging from 0.14 t/ha to 6.18 t/ha.

Although some maize is imported, there is no clear trend to importing. During the eight-year period 1977-1984, maize was imported in only four years, the largest quantity (4200 t) in 1984.

Maize is one of the subsidiary food crops cultivated in the highlands, and it therefore competes with other crops such as cowpea, green gram, groundnut, chilli and finger millet for space and inputs. It is often cultivated mixed with these crops.

Research on maize in Sri Lanka was initiated in the early 1950s at the agricultural research station Maha Illuppallama, with research on breeding, agronomy, pests and disease control. Early research was on the improvement of varieties, which resulted in the release of the first open-pollinated variety, T-48. Later research was conducted on hybrids, but without a continuous source of hybrid seeds, emphasis was redirected towards development of open-pollinated varieties. In 1970, the broad-based Thai Composite was introduced and selections were made to isolate a strain that performed much better than T-48. This strain was released as Bhadra 1. Research was also conducted and is continuing on fertilizer use, weed control, protein content, early-maturing varieties and drought resistance.

A field survey was conducted in Moneragala district, one of the main maize-producing districts in Sri Lanka. Moneragala district lies in the southeastern quadrant of Sri Lanka, and has a large land area and a very low population density. It is a rural district lacking areas administered by municipal or urban councils.

There are two broad climatic zones, the dry and the intermediate, but all areas receive rainfall during the maha season. Chena cultivation is prevalent and serves as a major source of food and income. Chenas are mainly under maize, manioc, finger millet, sesame, chilli, groundnut, green gram and cowpea.

There are 12 Agricultural Service Centre (ASC) areas in the district, seven or which were randomly selected for the survey. The survey covered broadly the 1984-1985 maha season and 1983-1984 maha season.

The average family size of the maize-cultivating farmer is 5.5 persons. However one-third of the families surveyed reported having extended families. The average household size of such families is six persons. Most of the farmers surveyed are educated, and while the educational level of farmers' wives is less than that of farmers the children have received a better education, reflecting recent improvements it educational facilities.

xiv

A majority of the farmers surveyed are full-time workers on their farms. Within each district, 86% of farmers farm full-time. Eighty-nine percent of the adult male children and 74% of the adult female children assist their parents in farming.

A majority of the farmers own their land. Over 90% have a lowland area farm, the average extent of lowland per farm is approximately 0.5 ha. The average extent of highland per farm is 1.3 ha. Availability of chena varies in different parts of the district. While 80% of the farmers in Bibila report having chena, only 14% in Wellawaya have chena. The average extent of chena per farm is 0.8 ha.

The average size of a farm is 2 ha. Moneragala ASC area has the largest average farm size (3.16 ha) and Bibila the smallest (1.29 ha).

Approximately one-half of the paddy lands are cultivated under rainfed conditions and one-third are under minor irrigation systems. Twenty-two percent of paddy lands can be cultivated in both the maha and yala season, but the rest is cultivated only in the maha season. Highlands and chenas are totally dependent on rainfall and are cultivated only in the maha season. The cropping calendars for lowland, highland and chena are different.

During maha, lowland is cultivated only in paddy. In yala, only 1.5% of the farmers surveyed cultivate other field crops, and 74% do not cultivate at all. A majority of the farmers cultivate highlands in a mixture of crops. In all ASC areas, maize is reported as a main crop in the mixture. Where pure stands are cultivated, maize is also main crop. The extent of maize grown in pure stands is almost the same as its extent as a mixed crop. In chenas, too, maize is a dominant crop whether it is cultivate in a pure stand or in a mixture.

In both highlands and chenas, more farmers grow maize in crop mixture than cultivate it in pure stands. The traditional mixed-crop system of cultivation has not changed. The average extent of mixed crop land per farm in highland is 0.42 ha and in chena 0.6-0.7 ha.

In highlands, 25% of the farmers surveyed cultivate improved varieties; others cultivate local and unspecified varieties. However, in chenas more farmers cultivate local and unspecified varieties. Seventy percent of farmers use their own seed, and 25% replant maize, for various reasons. The seed rate is not consistent.

Except in one ASC area, fertilizer is rarely applied to maize, and if applied the amounts are negligible. No farmers surveyed control pests and diseases. However, all practise weed control.

The cash cost of cultivating one hectare of maize in highlands varies from Rs 172 to Rs 912, with a weighted average of Rs 411. If the cost of family labour is added the full cost varies from Rs 2244 to Rs 4964. The costs under chena conditions are lower than under highland conditions.

The average yield of maize in highlands is 1160 kg/ha, compared with 1309 kg/ha in chenas. Where fertilizer is used, the yields are two to four times greater. Under chena conditions the increase in yield is not as dramatic as in highlands.

Farmers' earnings are several times their cash costs, but if the cost of family labour is added, the net earnings are marginal.

The market surplus of maize is 60% of production. The remaining 40%. is consumed by the farmer's household. The surplus is sold in stages. The peak period of sales is in the first month after harvest. The most common method of marketing maize is to sell it to traders in the village or in the bazaar. Collecting agents also come to the farms to purchase maize.

xv

Regression analysis showed that total output is significantly and positively related to land, fertilizer and improved varieties. Further analysis showed that farmers are only 52% efficient. Exposure to agricultural extension, specializing in large-scale maize cultivation was found to contribute positively to technical efficiency.

1

1

Introduction

Maize is cultivated in many districts in Sri Lanka, mainly under rainfed conditions. It is considered primarily a dry zone crop and is one of the main crops cultivated in the highlands. It is cultivated as a pure as well as a mixed crop in both settled highlands and in the shifting type of agriculture practised in highlands, called chena.

It is a popular crop, especially among those who practise chena. It is consumed mostly by rural people, in both the cob and flour forms. The main demand for maize, aside from its consumption by the farming family, is in the livestock sector, where it contributes about 25% of the poultry feed manufactured locally. Consequently there is an increasing emphasis on expanding the extent of land planted under this crop, as well as on improving the levels of production.

Maize is still cultivated in Sri Lanka at a low level of technology, with seeds of local or mixed varieties, and minimum or zero inputs, particularly of fertilizers. Two major constraints identified for the expansion of the crop acreage are the lack of marketing facilities and fair prices.

Objectives of the study A study in a typical maize-producing area was undertaken to identify:

1. the socio-economic profile of farmers who cultivate maize,

2. types and extent of land used for maize cultivation,

3. technology adopted by farmers,

4. costs and returns of maize cultivation,

5. marketing channels used and prices obtained by farmers and consumers,

6. constraints on further development, and

7. ongoing research and research results available for improvement of maize production.

Methodology Major maize-cultivating districts are Anuradhapura, Ampara, Badulla, Monera-

gala, Matale and Batticaloa (Table 3.1). Moneragala district was selected for the survey as it is centrally situated in this maize-growing region.

For agricultural extension purposes, Moneragala district is divided into 11 Agricultural Service Centre (ASC) areas (Figure 1.1). Maize is cultivated in all ASC

Introduction 2

areas and cultivation practices, for all practical purposes, can be considered homogeneous. Of the 11 ASC areas, seven were selected randomly for the first stage of the survey (Table 1.1).

Figure 1.1 Moneragala district Agricultural Service Centres.

A total of 350 farmers were interviewed for the survey. The sample was distributed equally among the seven selected ASC areas. Within each area the sample of 50

Introduction 3

farmers was distributed randomly among four to six villages. In each village, farmers were selected individually as there is no register of maize-cultivating farmers.

Table 1.1 ASC areas selected and farmer sample sizes ASC area Sample size

Bibila 50 Moneragala 50 Buttala 50 Badalkumbura 50 S.yambalanduwa 50 Wellawaya 50 Kotagama 50

Total 350

A single-visit, sample-survey technique with a questionnaire was used to collect the required information. The questionnaire was retested in the district and revised. Its four sections included: 1. socio-economic background of the cultivators,

2. information related to the cultivation of maize in highland and chena,

3. utilization of maize, including home consumption, marketing, marketing channels

and farm gate prices,

4. constraints faced by farmers in increasing the extent of cultivation and productivity, and

5. farmers' views on improving the cultivation and production of maize.

In addition to the farmers, investigators also met many traders at lower and higher levels of the marketing chain within the district. An open questionnaire was used to interview four or five traders selected individually from each ASC area.

Organization of the report A brief description of the more important physical characteristics of Sri Lanka

and salient features of the small farm sector are given in Chapter 2. The agro-ecological regions of the country, rainfall pattern, cultivation seasons and small farm sector characteristics such as holding sizes and cropping patterns are discussed in Chapter 2.

The main features of maize cultivation in Sri Lanka are given in Chapter 3. The extent of cultivation, cultivating districts, production and imports of maize are discussed. The status of research conducted on maize, including earlier studies, current research and anticipated research, is highlighted in Chapter 4.

Chapter 5 gives a general description of the main characteristics of Moneragala district, where the survey was conducted. This description serves as background for the survey results.

Introduction 4

The main chapter of this report is Chapter 6, which gives the survey results. It covers both socio-economic and agronomic aspects of maize cultivation in Moneragala. Chapter 6 presents the results of the survey in simple descriptive tables with averages and percentages. A more detailed analysis of the survey results including regressions and tabular analysis is given in Chapter 7.

Constraints on maize cultivation, based on survey findings as well as on regression and correlation analysis, are discussed in Chapter 8. Policy recommendations are given in Chapter 9.

5

2

Physical Characteristics of Sri Lanka and Features of The Small Farm Sector

Physical characteristics The geographical extent of Sri Lanka is 6.56 million ha. The total population is

approximately 15.5 million persons. The agriculture sector accounts for 23.8% of the gross domestic product (GDP), over 52.5% of total export earnings (1985) and 45.5% of total employment (1981).

Three distinct physiographic regions can be identified within the island: a lowland peneplane (sea level to 305 m), a highly dissected middle peneplane (305 m to 915 m) and an upland peneplane (higher than 915 m).

Potential land use in the country is determined largely by the pattern of annual rainfall, effects of temperature and elevation, soil characteristics and the degree of reliability of rainfall. Based on rainfall, vegetation, soils and present land use, three main agro-climatic zones have been recognized, namely the wet, intermediate and dry zones.

The climate is characterised by small variations of temperature and heavy, variable rainfall. The mean temperature ranges from 70-89°F. The annual precipitation follows a distinctly bi-modal pattern and the country receives rainfall from two monsoons: the northeast monsoon (November to January), referred to locally as the maha season, and the southwest monsoon (May to September), known locally as the yala season. The whole island benefits from the northeast monsoon, but the mountains intercept the southwest monsoon and, as a result, the highlands and southwestern portion of the island receive 190-508 cm of rain per year. This area is the wet zone and comprises 1.53 million ha. The remaining 75% of the island, comprising the lowlands to the north and east, benefits little from the southwest monsoon and receives 89-100 cm of rainfall per year. This area is divided into a dry and an intermediate zone. In the dry zone (4.17 million ha), the bulk of the rainfall occurs during the northeast monsoon. The intermediate zone (covering 0.85 million ha) has a better rainfall distribution as a transition area between the wet and dry zones (Figure 2.1).

There is considerable variation in the amount and reliability of monthly rainfall between zones and between locations within a zone. Runoff estimates indicate that only 50-60% of the rainfall received is effective. Probability data show that in the wet zone, rainfall is adequate and sufficiently reliable to grow a crop during both seasons. In the dry and intermediate zones, however, only in the maha season is the rainfall adequate for crop production under rainfed conditions. The rainfall in the dry zone during the yala season permits the cultivation of only short-aged, drought resistant, arable crops.

The three major zones (wet, dry and intermediate) are further divided. Within the wet and intermediate zones, a sub-division based on elevation takes into account the temperature limitations for the more important crops grown in the country. The elevation limits correspond to three physiographic units: low-country, mid-country and

Physical Characteristics of Sri Lanka 6

up-country. The wet zone has been divided into sub-regions based primarily on differences in rainfall and elevation. In the dry zone, the nature of the soils has been the main criterion for identifying individual agro-climatic regions. In the intermediate zone, both these elements receive equal weight.

Figure 2.1 Agro-ecological regions of Sri Lanka.


Monthly histograms of anticipated rainfall at the 75% probability level form the base for identification of individual rainfall regimes on the island. This information has been matched with soil and elevation data to identify 24 district agro-climatic regions (Figure 2.1).

The island is divided into 25 administrative districts, ranging in size from 7,224 sq km (Anuradhapura) to 1,217 sq km (Nuwara Eliya). The boundaries of these districts do not coincide with the agro-ecological regions, however. The bulk of the population resides in the wet zone, which comprises 25% of the island. The dry zone is sparsely populated, with the exception of the Jaffna district, which is intensively cultivated by a large concentration of farmers on very small holdings using groundwater.

Small farm sector in Sri Lanka The dominant land form in Sri Lanka, covering about 90% of the land surface, is

that of ridges and valleys, having as basic elements valley bottom, slope and ridge. The valley bottom is referred to as the "lowland" and the slope and ridge as "upland" or "highland". Most landholdings contain both lowland and highland, with a part of the highland demarcated as the home garden. This system, which could be considered the traditional form of landholding, still prevails in the older villages but appears to be disappearing in the new settlement schemes, primarily due to government settlement policies.

A single farm therefore consists of three separate parts, namely, the lowland where rice is usually cultivated, the highland where crops other than rice (such as pulses, coarse grains, yams, tubers and oil seeds) are grown and a home garden where vegetables and some tree crops are grown and animals are reared. The lowlands and highlands are usually cultivated in tracts, where the individual holdings of all members of the village are located. Traditionally, the entire area of the village is surrounded by forest. This physical environment provides the farmers with their food supply, fuel, and forage for the animals.

In the small farm sector there are an estimated 1,807,697 operational holdings, covering approximately 1.5 million ha of land (1982). Of these holdings, 557,200 (31%) produce crops and livestock, 1,196,390 (66%) produce crops only, and the balance produce livestock only. The number of holdings has increased slightly due to settlements under the Mahaweli Development Scheme and other schemes. Of the 1.5 million ha of cultivated acreage reported, 31% is lowland, 38% is highland and 31% is home garden. The general distribution is 70% highland to 30% lowland. However, in practice, only about 25% of the lowland is functional.

The farms can be categorized as:

1. three-component farms: farms that have the traditional structure and include lowland, highland and home garden;

2. two-component farms: any two of the three components are combined; and

3. single-component farms: having only one of the three identified elements.

The three- and two-component farms cover about 80% of the land cultivated, although they constitute only 48% of the farms. The largest farms are the traditional


three-component farms, which cover nearly 30% of the land area. The largest of these three-component farms (5% of the total farms) cover nearly 25% of the land area.

Cropping sequences tend to be determined by the composition of the land held. Farmers tend to cultivate all components of the farm and hence labour distribution among the components determines crop combinations.

Distribution of farms by region is correlated with the density of the rural population. However, the size of the farms is determined by the availability of land. The farms in the wet zone and the mid- and up-country areas are smaller, while in the dry zone they are larger.

Farm-size distribution is another important feature of the small farm sector in Sri Lanka. Eighty-eight percent of all farms (nearly 47% of land in the small-holding sector) are smaller than 2 ha. Land fragmentation continues to take place due to social conditions in Sri Lanka. In the future, therefore there will be more "parcels" of small-holdings that will have to be considered when dealing with the small farm sector.

Rainfed cropping in dry zone highland Most of the dry zone gets its rainfall from the northeast monsoon and hence

farmers in this zone are usually assured of a single crop. If rainfall is poor and inadequate, a yala-season crop is missed, except for a crop of sesame, which may be obtained from the intermonsoonal rains.

In the dry zone, the main type of agriculture in rainfed areas is chena cultivation, which is the traditional slash-and-burn system of crop production. Prior to the onset of the rains, farmers slash the jungle and set fire to it. With the first rains in late October, crops such as maize, finger millet, cowpea and sometimes upland paddy are sown.

The planting calendar for the chena is illustrated in Figure 2.2.

land preparation planting harvesting

I ------------------------------- I ---------------I ------------------ I ------------------I ------------ . Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

Figure 2.2 Planting calendar for chena.

The technology available to the chena farmer requires few inputs and minimizes risk. It is the first parcel of land that he cultivates and consequently it becomes an insurance policy against the failure of other crops sown. The produce from chena is primarily for home consumption. The profitability of chena cultivation is difficult to assess, due to the mixture of crops grown and because no records are maintained of what is consumed by the farmer. Three to four crops are intercropped and expenses, particularly for labour, are difficult to assess.

Integration with livestock in the chena is minimal as it is situated at a distance from the main landholding, including the homestead.

In addition to the chena, upland areas are also cultivated under rainfed conditions. Crops such as paddy, chilli, cowpea, soybean and millet are grown as monocrops. Farmers use inputs such as fertilizer and chemicals for pest and weed control. The level of management is high and the improved technologies available are used by the farmers.

9

3 Maize Cultivation and Production in Sri Lanka

Area under cultivation

Maize is traditionally cultivated during the maha season throughout Sri Lanka, except in the southwest coastal districts (Matara, Galle, Kalutara, Colombo and Gampaha) and Kegalle district in the mid-country. The extent of cultivation is relatively small in the northern districts of Jaffna, Vavuniya, Mullaitivu and Mannar, ranging from 25 to 200 ha. Maize is not an important crop in these districts. Major maize-cultivating districts are Anuradhapura, Ampara, Badulla, Moneragala, Matale and Batticaloa, where the area of land in cultivation is over 2,000 ha (Table 3.1). The cultivation in these districts accounts for over 80% of the land planted to maize in Sri Lanka (Table 3.1).

The extent of land planted to maize for each district in Sri Lanka for the period 1977-1984 is indicated in Table 3.2. During the 1970s the national figure for land planted to maize was in the range of 23,000-28,000 ha. This increased in the 1980s. The largest area recorded to date was 47,000 ha in the 1982/1983 maha season.

Table 3.1 Main maize cultivation districts of Sri Lanka.

District

1984/1985 Maha

1983/1984 Maha

1982/1983 Maha

% Of

national acreage

% Of national

productions

% Of national acreage

% Of national

productions

% Of national acreage

% Of national

productions

Anuradhapura 19.55 17.39 18.81 18.33 1758 4.42 Ampara 18.18 15.66 12.55 28.1 21.81 30.44 Badulla 17.66 23.71 19.83 15.09 21.26 18.53 Moneragala 12.53 14.06 11.56 8.88 9.53 8.23 Matale 7.96 8.85 9.24 3.88 7.3 5.49 Batticaloa 7.76 4.31 5.2 6.07 5.97 10.4

Source: Dept of Agriculture.

Production of maize Sri Lanka produces approximately 35,000 t of maize annually. The highest

recorded production was 50,859 t during the 1982/1983 maha season (Table 3.3). Except for this peak in production, over the years the annual production level has increased only slightly. During the 1979/1980 maha season, production was 31,000 t, which gradually increased to 38,600 t in the 1983/1984 maha season.

The main cultivating areas are usually the main producing areas. However, since the factors that determine the extent of land under cultivation are different from those that determine production, the most important, districts for production are not necessarily those most important for cultivation. This relationship is shown in Table 3.1, and in Table 3.4, where the yield per hectare is shown to fluctuate from year to


year. Even within a season there is a wide variation in yield per hectare among the districts. During the 1983/1984 maha season, the yield fluctuated from 0.14 t (in Ratnapura district) to 6.18 t (in Mullaittivu district). Even the major producing districts (Badulla, Moneragala, Anuradhapura and Batticaloa) show variations in yield from season to season.

Table 3.2 Extant of cultivation of maize in ASC districs Unit: hectars

District 1977/ 1978/ 1979/ 1980/ 1981/ 1982/ 1983/ 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Colombo - - - - - - - Gampaha - - 7 - - - - Kalutara - - - - - - - Galle 1 - 3 - - - - Matara 1 - - 4 4 - - Puttalam 706 497 315 543 582 531 972 Kurunegala 716 544 401 1576 866 1536 1026 Kegalle - - - - - - - Ratnapura 1035 552 511 743 583 - 864 Kandy 554 641 206 630 817 485 2291 Matale 777 681 2218 2234 1419 3435 4168 Nuwara Eliya 151 383 389 279 573 663 285 Badulla 4640 5643 7324 5437 5971 10108 9020 Moneragala 3750 3012 2648 4450 3848 4577 5263 Jaffna 4 3 7 4 43 37 44 Vavuniya 84 68 49 70 111 138 118 Mullaitivu - - - 20 14 21 27 Mannar 2 9 16 23 11 26 19 A nuradhapura 5584 3023 2775 3615 5797 8270 8484 Polonnaruwa 782 804 316 610 876 1148 1217 Trincomalee 1179 887 1126 1202 2898 1797 2330 Batticaloa 2445 1555 1309 1921 2518 2810 2345 Ampara 4564 4033 2856 3224 6655 10259 5670 Hambantota 1465 1075 901 707 551 536 630 Udawalawe 191 205 116 184 - 291 - Mahaweli `H' - - 871 619 - 608 641 Sri Lanka 28631 23615 24364 28095 34137 47276 45414

Source: Dept. of Agriculture Table 3.3 Productions of maize in Sri Lanka

Maha Production (t)

1977/1978 33,612 1978/1979 25,505 1979/1980 31,085 1980/1981 34,971 1981/1982 37,619 1982/1983 50,859 1983/1984. 38,641

Source: Dept of Agriculture

Maize Cultivation and Production in Sri Lanka 11 Table 3.4 Yeild per hectare of maize Unit : kg/ha

District 1984/1985

Maha 1984/1985

Maha 1984/1985

Maha Puttalam 1050 1000 760 Kurunegala 530 1000 680 Ratnapura - 140 - Kandy 1250 1240 1180 Matale 1000 360 810 Nuwara Eliya 300 - 300 Badulla 1210 650 940 Moneragala 990 660 930 Jaffna - 290 4000 Vavuniya 1000 1490 Mullaitivu - 6180 1240 Mannar 1000 - 770 A nuradhapura 800 830 270 Polonnaruwa - 500 3380 Trincomalee 500 - 1200 Batticaloa n.a. 1000 1880 Ampara n.a. 1920 1510 Hambantota 1000 1000 1000 Mahaweli `H' 2000 2000 3700 Udawalawe - -


Imports of maize There is no regular trend in the import of maize to Sri Lanka. The main industrial

use of maize is in the provender industry, and imports are determined by local production. During the eight-year period 1977-1984, maize was imported in only four years and in varying quantities (Table 3.5). During 1983, the imports were only 21 t (possibly orders placed during 1982).

The largest quantity of imported maize (4,200 t) was imported in 1984, nearly twice the quantity imported in 1982, and four times the quantity imported in 1979. Maize is imported mainly from Thailand, Taiwan and India.

Table3.5 Imports of maize

Year Imports (t)

Value (Rs/t)

1977 - - 1978 - - 1979 1000 2.9 1980 - - 1981 - - 1982 2461 12.3 1983 20.6 0.8 1984 4200 17.1


Other subsidiary food crops All seasonal food crops, other than paddy, are classified as subsidiary food crops,

these include coarse grains (maize, sorghum, millet), pulses (cowpea, black and green


gram, soybean), spices (chilli and onion) and oil crops (sesame). Since all the subsidiary food crops are cultivated in highlands (using both permanent and shifting types of cultivation), some of them compete with maize. Farmers take advantage of the plant type of maize as well as the spacing it allows, and often intercrop maize with other subsidiary food crops. Main food crops that compete for cultivation with maize are cowpea, green gram, groundnut, chilli and kurakkan (finger millet).

The extent of land planted with competing subsidiary food crops (for maha seasons) is given in Table 3.6. The national extent of land planted to cowpea during the maha season ranges from 17,000 to 35,000 ha, and green gram from 10,000 to 27,000 ha. Groundnut is cultivated to a lesser extent (6,000-12,000 ha) and chillies are cultivated over an area of 15,000-23,000 ha. The extent of kurakkan is around 7,000-20,000 ha.

The production levels of these crops are lower than the production level of maize. The maha season production level of cowpea is about 20,000 t and green gram, chilli as well as groundnut range from 10,000 to 15,000 t. Finger millet production level is around 10,000 t (Table 3.7).

Table 3.6 Cultivation of subsidiary food crops other than maize, maha season only Unit: hectares

Maha season Cowpea Green gram Groundnut Chilli Kurakkan

1977/1978 19705 10189 6975 23282 17346 1978/1979 25207 10840 4180 11204 10756 1979/1980 17614 10761 7006 13990 7651 1980/1981 27646 11857 9789 14950 12770 1981/1982 20911 12719 11220 14529 13091 1982/1983 34949 19389 11811 18970 19355 1983/1984 27687 26849 6034 15139 16482

Table 3.7 Production of subsidiary food crops other than maize, maha season only Unit: hectares

Maha season Cowpea Green Groundnut Chilli Kurakkan

1977/1978 15948 6761 6163 16740 14368 1978/1979 15839 8839 3944 6182 8165 1979/1980 16948 10103 11390 11866 5586 1980/1981 28058 13057 11628 11055 1 1119 1981/1982 21084 11307 10413 12109 10752 1982/1983 23184 12708 15943 14930 11233 1983/1984 19115 15213 4733 7197 6570

Marketing. of maize The structure of the market for maize is not very different from the market for

other subsidiary food crops. In general, there are three significant types of intermediaries between the producer and the consumer:

1. primary assemblers (local collectors, local merchants and co-operatives), who buy

the crops directly from the producers; 2. intermediate buyers, traders who buy from other traders;

Maize Cultivation and Production in Sri Lanka 13 3. wholesalers, final purchasers in Colombo or other towns, who buy from primary

assemblers or from intermediate buyers. Studies have shown that, in marketing maize, more than 70% of the maize

produced in various parts of the country passes through primary assemblers. In most areas, the largest group of primary assemblers (40-60%) are the local traders, followed by local collectors. These studies also indicate that maize producers generally receive 81-88% of the wholesale price (in Colombo) of maize.

Agricultural extension for maize Agricultural extension for all food crops, including maize, is handled by the

Department of Agriculture, under the Training and Visit (T&V) system of agricultural extension.

Under the T&V system of agricultural extension, village-level extension officers meet a pre-identified group of farmers known as contact farmers. Each contact farmer is met by an officer every fortnight on a pre-determined day of the week, and extension messages relevant for the current stage of the crop are delivered. The contact farmers in turn inform other farmers ("follower" farmers) about the messages. The extension officers also gather information on field problems, which they bring to the attention of the research officers.

15

4 Maize research in Sri Lanka

Earlier studies on maize The need for improvement of maize production in Sri Lanka was recognized in the

early 1950s and the agricultural research station, Maha Illuppallama, was entrusted with the task of conducting research on maize related to breeding, agronomy, pest and disease control. However, with the regionalization of agricultural research, maize research is now conducted at seven stations with Maha Illuppallama as the main centre.

The earliest research on maize was mainly on varietal improvement, which resulted in the release of the first open-pollinated variety (T-48) in the early 1960s. At this time attempts were also made to develop hybrids locally using the conventional inbred-line technique. A few hybrids showed promise but their yield levels, compared with the open-pollinated varieties, were not high enough to encourage their release.

Hybrids introduced from the US were not adapted to local conditions and gave almost the same or lower yields than the popularly grown, open-pollinated varieties.

Hybrids popular in India were introduced and evaluated during the rainy season of 1968/1969 at Maha Illuppallama. Grain yield for these hybrids ranged from 3870 to 4350 kg/ha, with Ganga-3 hybrid giving about a 32% higher yield than T-48. However, Ganga-3 was not recommended for cultivation as hybrid seed has to be imported every year, involving a considerable amount of foreign exchange. At this time the development of hybrid varieties, without resorting to the conventional procedure of using inbred lines, was attempted by crossing selected varieties. These hybrid varieties are easier and cheaper to produce. The results obtained were encouraging and the best hybrid variety gave a yield of 6540 kg/ha with a yield increase of 38% over T-48. However, seed production was a major problem.

Production of hybrid seed is a specialized process and in most advanced countries this task is undertaken by private seed companies. In Sri Lanka there are no organized seed companies that handle the production of hybrid seeds. Moreover, without improved management practices, hybrids may not have any impact on production.

Owing to these limitations a maize-improvement programme based on hybrids was considered to, be impracticable and emphasis was directed towards the development of open-pollinated varieties, with the following objectives:

1. high yield and wide adaptability,

2. maturity: 110-115 days,

3. shorter plant height with good husk cover,

4. resistance to diseases, i.e. stalk rot, leaf blight, banded leaf and sheath spots,

16 Maize Research in Sri Lanka

5. tolerance to drought, and 6. acceptable grain type (preferably yellow/orange flint).

Breeding Local varieties

A wide range of local varieties is grown by the farmers. Almost all local varieties are flint types and they differ in grain, colour and maturity.

Sithamparanathan (1958), after studying the local varieties, came to the following conclusions. 1. The prevalent practice of selecting maize seed for the following season from within

a small population of maize in, each individual chena has conceivably led to steady inbreeding of the local maize varieties, particularly when a single variety is grown in a chena and chenas are far apart;

2. When different varieties of maize have been grown in adjacent chenas, natural hybridization over the years has probably obliterated all traces of the original varieties.

Both conditions are known to exist locally and the indigenous maize varieties may therefore be expected to be highly mixed or inbred.

Table 4.1 shows the performance of some of the local varieties collected from different maize-growing areas. Most of the local varieties are tall, leafy and late-maturing. They tend to lodge at normal densities and in general their yields are lower than those of the improved varieties.

Table 4.1 Grain yield ind agronomic data of eight local varieties of maize evaluated during the rainy season

of 1981/1982

Lodging % Variety Days to

50% silking

Plant ht.

(cm)

Ear ht.

(cm) Root Stalk

Yield (kg/ha)

Local 1(Mahiyangana) 71 247 156 20 0 4470 Local 2 (Walapane) 68 320 155 7 1 4800 Local 3 (Nidandahinna) 69 236 129 10 2 3867 Local 4 (Mapakada) 68 358 164 13 1 3841 Local 5 (Tabbowa) 2 203 121 21 1 3339 Local 6 (Moneragala) 62 254 151 15 0 3779 Local 7 (Masspanna) 62 257 159 8 2 4369 Local 8 (Anuradhapura) 66 191 93 19 7 2332 Bhadra 1(Check) 64 195 104 0 10 4972 C.V.% 22.65 L.S.D.(P= 0.05) 352

Due to the fact that these local varieties have existed for a long time and due to

selection by the farmers, resistance or tolerance to local hazards such as drought, pests and diseases has developed. In order to retain desirable characteristics of local

Maize Research in Sri Lanka 17 varieties, a population was formed by combining local varieties collected from different maize-growing areas. Some of the promising varieties introduced from the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre, Mexico (CIMMYT), were also incorporated into this population. It could serve as a valuable source for developing varieties or hybrids adapted to local conditions.

Varietal improvement Since 1968 close links have been established with the Inter-Asian Corn

Improvement Centre in Thailand and with CIMMYT in Mexico and, as a result, there has been a regular flow of improved germplasm into the local programme. In 1970 a broad-based composite (Thai Composite), formed by combining 36 varieties, was introduced from Thailand. It was a good source for developing varieties owing to its wide genetic base and tropical adaptation. When the original composite was first tested at Maha Illuppallama in 1971, it gave a slightly lower yield than T-48 but it responded well to selection. A variety developed from Thai Composite was evaluated in multi-location trials from 1974 to 1977. It gave a mean yield increase of 23% over T-48 (Table 4.2). This variety was released in 1977 under the name Bhadra 1. It has now become a popular variety with the farmers.

Table 4.2 Mean grain yield of two promising maize varieties evaluated at four locations during the rainy season of 1974/1975 and seven locations in 1975/1976 and 1976/1977

Season Variety

1974/1975 1975/1976 1976/1977

Mean yeild

Bhadra 1 4724 3912 4116 4250 Cupurico X Flint Compesto 4031 3932 4109 4024 Local Variety (Check 1) - 2698 - 2698 T - 48 (Check 2) 3493 3394 3466 3451

The process of developing better varieties is also in progress. A composite formed

by combining Bhadra 1, Cupurico x Flint Compesto and Poza Rica 7425 (introduced from CIMMYT) has shown promise in the multi-location trials conducted from 1981 to 1985 and has given 10% greater yield than Bhadra 1.

White maize Even though the demand is greater for yellow maize, there is also a limited

demand for white maize, particularly for the biscuit industry. Across 7843 and Across 7929 are two of the white varieties of maize that have shown promise. These varieties were introduced from CIMMYT.

Early-maturing maize varieties Early-maturing varieties are required for drier areas and during the dry season.

Varieties that mature in three months are suitable for these situations. Table 4.3 shows the grain yield of some of the early-maturing maize varieties. These are about one week to 10 days earlier than Bhadra 1.


Table 4.3 Mean grain yield of early-maturing maize varieties evaluated at two locations during the rainy season of 1982/1983.

Variaty

yield (kg/ha)

Pop. 31 X Suwas 2 (S) C5 5098 KUC # 2F7 4760 Suwan 2 (S) C7F2 3842 Thai Comp. 1 Early DVR (S) C4 3449 Bhadra I (Check) 4835

Quality protein maize Maize is deficient in the essential amino acids lysine and tryptophane. This

deficiency is a major constraint on the use of maize in human and animal diets. Normal maize contains 9-11% protein, of which lysine constitutes 2% and tryptophane 0.5%. These amino acids should be doubled to 4% lysine and 1% tryptophane to support normal body growth.

CIMMYT has been able to improve the nutritional quality of maize without sacrificing the yield through the use of opaque 2 gene in combination with other genetic modifiers. These varieties now have better grain characteristics than the soft-endosperm opaque 2 varieties which have reduced yield potential and high susceptibility to ear rot and stored-grain pests.

Several improved-quality-protein maize varieties obtained from CIMMYT were tested under local conditions. Table 4.4 shows the yields of some of the promising varieties. Poza Rica 8140 and Across 8140 have given slightly higher yields than Bhadra 1(normal variety). These varieties may be more suitable for areas in Sri Lanka where maize is traditionally consumed as food.

Table 4.4 Mean grain yield of four quality protein maize varieties and

one normal variety evaluated at two locations during the rainy season of 1983/1984.

Variaty

yield (kg/ha)

Poca Rica 8140 4419 Acros 8140 4370 Acros 7940 R.E. 3995 San Jeronimo 8140 3781 Bhadra I (normal variety) 3977

Agronomic investigations

Fertilizer studies Maize is generally grown in a shifting system of cultivation in the highlands of the dry zone where the farmers cultivate the land for two to three seasons after clearing the jungle, and then abandon it. Soils of these newly cleared lands (chenas) have a good supply of nutrients and no need for fertilizers for the first few seasons. As a result of scarcity of land for shifting cultivation, the farmers in future will have to adopt a more stable type of cultivation on the rainfed highlands. When such a system is adopted the

Maize Research in Sri Lanka 19 fertility status of the soils will decline rapidly and use of fertilizer will be important to maintain yield levels.

Soils of the major proportion of the highlands of the dry zone where maize is grown are reddish-brown earths. These are sandy clay loams, slightly acid to neutral in reaction, low in organic matter, nitrogen and available phosphorous. Potassium, however, is present in fair amounts. Several fertilizer experiments were carried out to determine the optimum rate of NP and K fertilizer. The economical fertilizer rate for most areas was 70 N, 45 P205 and 30 K20 kg/ha. Investigations were also carried out to determine the effect of split application of nitrogen fertilizer at different growth stages, as time of application of nitrogen fertilizer is important to prevent nutrient losses due to heavy rains and leaching. Base application of one-quarter of the recommended rate of nitrogen and application of the remaining three-quarters, four to five weeks after planting, gave the best results.

Studies on fertilizer management in the uplands of the dry zone To enable continuous cropping of rainfed highlands, a system of crop cultivation

under simulated forest conditions was initiated by Handawela in 1977. A tree stand of Gliricidia maculata was established in one block and the adjacent block was left bare without any trees. The purpose of the tree stand was to reduce the pace of degeneration of surface soil tilth by reducing erosion and by improving the soil organic matter level to what is possible under a forest cover, to fix nitrogen, to recycle nutrients and to smother weeds. Tree loppings were added to the simulated forest fields. In both fields the crop and weed residues were left on the ground.

Results of a maize experiment conducted in maha season 1983/1984 in these fields to study the effect of five levels of nitrogen are presented in Table 4.5. The results show that in the simulated forest fields, zero and low nitrogen treatments (30 kg/ha) gave higher yields than the corresponding treatments in the bare field (without trees). However, at higher levels of nitrogen, the differences were not apparent. This experiment is being continued to gather further information.

Table 4.5 Grain yield of maize in simulated forest and bare fields at five nitrogen levels. Unit : kg/ha

Levels of nitrogen (kg N/ha)

Simulated forest field

Bare field

0 3100 1323 30 3215 2822 60 3380 3361

100 3777 3978 150 3788 4116

Mean yield 3452 3120

Sourch: Handawela 1985

Studies on plant density Plant density is an important factor that determines the yield of maize. Plant

density studies were conducted in research stations as well as in farmers' fields using different fertilizer rates with local and recommended varieties. Based on these studies,


the following recommendations were made: 1. with adequate fertilizer and moisture, 55,000 plants/ha (two plants/hill - 60 cm x

60 cm) is best for grain production for improved varieties such as Bhadra 1;

2. tall leafy local varieties should be grown at lower densities, 37,000 plants/ha (one plant/hill - 60 cm x 60 cm) to prevent lodging and poor ear development;

3. plant density should be reduced at low fertilizer levels or when maize is grown without any fertilizer.

Studies on weed control Under shifting cultivations, farmers rarely practise weed control as the incidence

of weeds is minimal. But as the cropping frequency increases beyond two or three seasons, there is a progressive build-up of weeds. Initially, weed flora include both broadleaves and grasses, but if cultivation continues for six years or more the grassy weeds, both perennial and annual types, become more prominant. Common weeds in continuously cropped lands include grasses such as Chloris barbata Sw., Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers., Dactylocterium aegyptium (L.) Beauv., Digitaria marginata Link, Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn., and broadleaves such as Mimosa pudica L., Melochia corchorifolia L., Tridax procumbens L., Euphorbia heterophylla L., Sida rhombifolia L., Passiflora foetida L., Ocimum gratissimum L., Abutilon triloba L., and Acanthospermum hispidium L.

Heavy weed growth is one of the factors that reduces the yield of maize in continuously cropped lands. Yields could be reduced by about 30-40% if weeds were not controlled.

Methods of weed control Weeding with land preparation

The primary objective of land preparation is to eliminate weeds and provide an environment for good germination and vigorous growth of seedlings. In land where shifting cultivation is practised, minimum tillage methods, such as scraping the soil, are sufficient to get a weed-free seed bed. A blade harrow was found to be an efficient implement for this purpose. There are other simple and light animal-drawn implements that also can be used effectively.

More intensive land preparation methods must be used for continuously cropped lands to minimize weed growth. This may involve ploughing followed by one or two harrowings. Few farmers can afford this type of land preparation.

Weedings with inter-cultivation

Emergence of weeds after crop establishment is inevitable and the most common method of controlling them is by inter-row weeding. Usually two to three weedings are required to control weeds in maize and these weedings must be done during the first 30-40 days of crop growth. Several manually operated implements (such as the Swiss hoe, wheel hoe and three-point inter-cultivator) were found to be suitable for inter-row weeding.

Maize Research in Sri Lanka 21 Use of herbicides

Farmers are not using herbicides for maize. However, studies indicate that Atrazine and Butachlor are effective as pre-emergent herbicides in controlling weeds.

Water requirements and irrigation studies During the rainy season there is a 75% probability that rainfall alone will satisfy

the water requirements of a 120-day cereal crop like maize (Panabokke and Walgama 1974). However, during the dry season (April-August), the chances of getting a successful crop of maize under rainfed conditions are low and the crop must be irrigated during the dry periods. Mean total rainfall for the dry season varies from 300-400 mm, most of which falls during the month of April. The dry season is also characterized by high temperatures and strong dry winds.

Average maximum and minimum temperatures are 34°C and 24°C respectively. Relative humidity is around 80% and wind speeds are nearly 165 km per day for the season. The "Class A pan" evaporation rates are high and often exceed 5-6 mm per day.

The reddish-brown earths have a narrow range of available moisture. The available moisture per metre of soil is 135 mm and about 85% of this is released at a tension of one atmosphere.

The total water requirement of a 115-day maize crop during the dry season at Maha Illuppallama was found to be 615 mm. Maize yields decreased significantly when irrigated below the 50% depletion level of available soil moisture. Grain yield of maize, when irrigated at 50% depletion level of available moisture, was 4100 kg/ha, whereas at 75% depletion level, the yield dropped to 2226 kg/ha. Thus, due to the adverse weather and soil conditions, maize grown during the dry season has to be irrigated at least once every three-to-four days to prevent moisture stress.

Research activities - continuing planned breeding

Development of hybrids In addition to the programme for the development of open-pollinated varieties of

maize, a programme will be initiated to develop hybrids as they will have a much greater impact on production.

Breeding for shorter plant height There is a wide yield gap between temperate and tropical maize. There are factors

in addition to low management that contribute to low yield levels in tropical maize. Research done at CIMMYT shows that tropical maize is not "grain efficient" because it is too tall, leafy and subject to lodging. It also has a large tassel and low grain/stalk ratio. CIMMYT's physiologists have shown that reducing the plant height of tropical maize improves its yield.

In order to develop shorter plant-height varieties, a population has been developed using a local variety and another introduced from CIMMYT. This population is undergoing improvement.


Selection for drought tolerance Maize will continue to be grown under rainfed conditions and it is important to

incorporate drought tolerance in these varieties. A programme will be undertaken to breed for drought tolerance.

Breeding for disease resistance Some common diseases observed in maize are leaf blight, stalk rot, and banded

leaf and sheath spot. Breeding for resistance to these diseases will be continued.

Agronomic investigations 1. Fertilizer trials in farmers' fields to determine the economic levels.

2. Investigation of efficient methods of fertilizer application to minimize wastage

and loss.

3. Plant density studies using newly developed varieties.

4. Inter-cropping studies using different crop combinations.

5. Studies of avenue cropping using leguminous trees such as ipil-ipil (Leucaena leucocephala Link) and Gliricidia (Gliricidia maculata Steud.) to improve the physical, biological and chemical properties of soil.

6. Studies of simple and less expensive methods of weed control.

7. Studies of irrigation.

23

5 Characteristics of Moneragala District

Physical features

Area and population Moneragala district lies in the southeastern quadrant of Sri Lanka. It has the

largest land area among the districts, with 5587 sq km (8% of Sri Lanka). Its population is 273,000 (1981) with an average density of 10 persons per sq km. This density is very low compared with the national average, of around 193 per sq km. The district is essentially rural. The districts of Hambantota, Ratnapura, Badulla and Ampara form the boundaries of Moneragala district (Figure 1.1).

Moneragala is one of the few districts without an urban agglomeration. The largest population concentration within the district is 100 to 150 persons per sq km in the small area of Medagama, Badalkumbura and Moneragala Assistant Government Agent's divisions, which lies in the centre and along the western border. The remaining vast expanses stretching to the southern, northern and eastern boundaries are very sparsely inhabited, with less than 50 persons per sq km.

Moneragala has no urban areas administered by municipal or urban councils. The only locality with any urban character is the Moneragala Town Council, where only 2.2% of the population lives.

The total labour force is estimated at about 76,000 persons and the majority are engaged in work in the agricultural sector. School-age children constitute a major portion of the total population.

The school attendance of the 10 to 14-year-olds improved from 54.4% in 1971 to 78.8% in 1981. Among the older children of 15-19 years, school attendance improved from 20.5% to 32.6%.

Of all the employed persons, 73.5% are in agricultural occupations (males 74.7% and females 66.6%).

Moneragala district has a fairly low unemployment rate of 9.2%. Unemployment is 12.6% in the urban sector and 9.2% in the rural sector.

Climate Moneragala district has two broad climatic zones: the dry zone in the south and

east and the intermediate zone in the northwest. Annual and seasonal rainfall varies widely. The seasonal rainfall pattern is markedly bi-modal. All areas receive rainfall during the October-December period from the northeast monsoon (maha). A shorter period of rainfall is also experienced in all areas during April from the southwest monsoon (yala). Mean annual rainfall generally increases from about 122 cm in Thanamalwila and Kataragama areas to 254 cm in the northwest. Nearly half of the district receives a mean annual rainfall of 190 cm. In general, rainfed cultivation is possible in the maha season, and yala cultivation is possible only with supplementary irrigation, especially in the dry zones.

24 Characteristics of Moneragala District

Topography and soils Elevation within the district varies from 656 m above mean sea level in the south

to 6560 m in the northeast. Most of the areas are plane or gently undulating with frequent patches of rock-knob hills.

The common soil group within the district is the reddish brown earths, alternating with low-humic clays. Immature brown loams appear on the steeper slopes, while in the areas around Moneragala towns there are localized Red-Yellow Podzolic soils with strongly mottled sub-soils or with hard and soft laterites.

Water resources and drainage The major rivers are the Walawe, Krindi-Oya, Menik Ganga, Kumbukkan-Oya

and Gal-Oya. Many of these streams feed irrigation tanks. Within the district there are major irrigation tanks serving 1820 ha, with a cultivated area of 2168 ha, and anicut (raised irrigation water distribution canals) schemes serving a cultivated area of 2550 ha. The Department of Agrarian Services administers 2834 ha cultivated under minor irrigation schemes.

The number of major and minor irrigation tanks under different ASC areass are shown in Table 5.1

Table 5.1 Major and minor irrigation tanks in ASC areas

ASC No. of major tanks No. of minor tanks

Kataragama - 5 Thanamalwila 2 44 Wallawaya 5 14 Buttala 8 5 Moneragala 2 6 Badalkumbura - 21 Madagama 1 55 Bibila 3 29 Kotagama - 5 Dambagalla 1 5 Siyambalanduwa 2 6 Muthukandiya 1 -

Total 25 195 Chena cultivation is prevalent and serves as a major source of food and income.

Paddy cultivation is normally delayed in maha season due to operations in chena and this delay results in low productivity and reduced capacity in tanks for yala cultivation.

Land use ]The total land area of the district is 558,898 ha. National parks occupy 63,967 ha.

Only 60,728 ha are utilized for agricultural purposes: 5668 ha are under forests, 25,910 ha are under perennial crops, 10,242 ha are under paddy, 12,955 ha under temporary crops (mainly chena) and 133 ha are under pasture lands.

The traditional export crops are tea, rubber and coconut, and these occupy 1270 ha, 3615 ha and 2327 ha respectively. Remaining crop areas are mainly home gardens. Sugar-cane-and other subsidiary food crops cover 4736 ha.

Characteristics of Moneragala Distric 25

Chenas are mainly under maize, manioc, kurakkan, sesame, chilli, groundnut, green gram and cowpea. Most chena cultivations are in the dry zone.

There are 32,350 operational holdings, with an average holding size of 1.6 ha. Paddy holdings constitute only 13,454 holdings or 41.6% of the total, with an average size of 0.6 ha. A large portion of the holdings is illegal encroachments on crown land.

The area under major crops in Moneragala district during 1984/1985 maha and 1985 yala is given in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2 Extent of major crops in Moneragala district

Crop Extent in 1984/1985 maha

Extent in 1985 yala

Paddy 10681 4129 Chilli 768 68 Maize 4639 35 Finger millet 1586 92 Cowpea 2227 632 Green gram 1074 232 Groundnut 1279 673 Sesame 236 969 Cassava 1707 258

Agricultural extension service

Agricultural officers, agricultural instructors and village-level extension officers (KVSS) work in the main offices in Moneragala and in 12 ASC regions. The spread of staff within the district is shown in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3 agricultural extension service staff in Moneragala district

Main office Asst. Director of Agriculture 1 Agricultural instructors 1 KVSS 3 Subject matter officers 3

Field stations Agricultural officers 1 Agricultural instructors 9 KVSS 60 Subject matter officers 8

27

6 Result of the Socio-Economic Survey of Maize Cultivation

Family information Family composition

The average family size of maize-cultivating farmers in Moneragala district is 5.5 persons. The largest families are among the farmers in Siyambalanduwa ASC, with 6.3 members, and the smallest in Wellawaya, with 5.1 members (Table 6.1). More families in Bibila report having adult male children than in any other ASC area. Overall, 45% of families have adult male children and 39% of families have adult female children. The average number of adult males and females per family is approximately the same, around 1.75. In addition to the children of the family, about one-third of the families report having close members of the extended family, namely, brothers, sisters, in-laws, parents. The average household or extended family size is therefore 6.0.

Table 6.1 Family composition.

ASC area

Ave. family

size

Male Children over 16

yrs

Adult males

Female children over 16

yrs

Adult females

Other members

Average hosehold

sizea

Bibila 5.8 1.4 60 1.4 52 38 6.4 Moneragala 5.3 1.7 42 2.0 30 88 6.0

Buttala 5.2 1.6 40 2.1 30 34 6.5 Badalkumbura 5.4 1.8 42 1.6 44 20 5.9

Siyambalanduwa 6.3 2.4 54 1.9 42 4 6.4 Wellawaya 5.1 1.7 32 1.5 34 12 5.3 Kotagama 5S 1.8 42 1.5 42 12 5.9 Dist. ave. 5.5 1.8 44.5 1.7 39.1 29.7 6.0

aincluding other member

Educational level

About 7% of farmers in the district have not received any education, but Moneragala and Buttala ASC areas report higher percentages of farmers without any education. Nearly one-third of the farmers in these areas have received an education up to the 5th Standard and another one-third up to the 8th Standard. Senior School Certification (SSC) has been achieved by 16% of farmers, who are mostly young (Table 6.2).

Farmers' wives have a lower level of education, as indicated in Table 6.3. Twenty-one percent of wives have no education, and 40% have studied only up to the 5th Standard. However, the percentage of SSC-qualified wives is about the same as for husbands.

28 Results of the Socio-Economic Survey of Maize Cultivation

Compared with their parents, the adult children in the farming families have received a better education, reflecting improvements in the educational facilities. Fifty-three percent of adult children have achieved the SSC. Only 4% of children have no education (Table 6.4).

Table 6.2 Educational level of the farmers unit: % farmers

ASC area

No education

Up to 5th standard

6th to 8th standard SSCa Above

SSC

Bibila 6 24 62 8 - Moneragala 10 40 24 24 2 Buttala 10 42 26 16 6 Badalkumbura 8 34 32 24 2 Siyambalanduwa 6 46 40 6 2 Wellawaya 6 44 36 12 2 Kotagama 4 32 44 20 - Dist. ave. 7.1 37.4 37.7 15.7 2

a senior School Certificate

Table 6.2 Educational level of farmers’ wives unit: % wives

ASC area

No education

Up to 5th standard

6th to 8th standard SSC Above

SSC

Bibila 8.2 40.8 40.8 10.2 - Moneragala 17.1 34.1 19.5 29.3 - Buttala 30.2 30.2 18.6 21.0 - Badalkumbura 18.6 39.5 25.6 11.6 4.7 Siyambalanduwa 26.5 49.0 16.3 6.1 2.0 Wellawaya 26.7 35.5 26.7 6.7 4.4 Kotagama 17.8 51.1 13.3 17.8 - Dist. ave. 20.6 40.3 23.2 14.3 1.6

Table 6.2 Educational level of children over 16 years of age unit: % children

ASC area

No education

Up to 5th standard

6th to 8th standard SSC Above

SSC

Bibila - 4.8 44.0 38.1 7.1 Moneragala 3.1 15.4 22.0 32.3 29.2 Buttala 7.9 22.2 22.2 23.8 23.8 Badalkumbura 4.1 13.9 26.4 36.1 19.4 Siyambalanduwa 3.8 19.2 35.6 30.8 10.6 Wellawaya 5.7 11.3 39.6 30.2 13.2 Kotagama 2.8 7.0 11.3 56.3 22.5 Dist. ave. 3.7 13.6 29.4 35.9 17.3

Participation of family in farming

Most farmers work full-time on their own farms. Over 90% are full-time farmers in three of the seven ASC areas. On a district basis, 86% of farmers farm full-time (Table 6.5). The full-time involvement of farmers' wives in the farm is difficult to isolate. In some cases wives are working a full day on the farm while attending to household work as well. According to their own classification, most of the wives are involved in

Results of the Socio-Economic Survey of Maize Cultivation 29 farm work on a part-time basis, except in Kotagama and Bibila ASC areas, where most work a full day on their farms. In addition to the farmer and his wife, adult children also work on the farm. Eighty-nine percent of adult males and 74% of adult females assist their parents. Nearly half the adult males work full-time. Most of the females are part-time workers. Only 27% of young children assist in the farm work on a part-time basis (Table 6.6). Table 6.5 Participation of farmer and wife in activities of the farm. Unit: % reporting

Farmer Wife ASC area Full- time Full- time

Full- time Part-time

Bibila 92 8 65.3 32.6 Moneragala 82 18 - 95.1 Buttala 72 28 - 93.0 Badalkumbura 84 16 44.2 55.8 Siyambalanduwa 86 14 - 89.8 Wellawaya 94 6 20.0 75.5 Kotagama 90 10 84.4 13.3 Dist. ave. 85.7 14.3 31.1 64.4

Table 6.6 Participation of farmer and wife in activities of the farm. Unit: % reporting

Males over 16 yrs Females over

16 yrs Children under 16 yrs ASC

area Full time on farm

Part time on farm Full time

on farm Part time on farm Full time

on farm Part time on farm

Bibila 51.2 44.2 5.5 94.4 - 35.6 Moneragala 17.1 65.7 - 70.0 - 12.1 Buttala 37.5 62.5 - 67.7 - 9.7 Badalkumbura 40.5 43.2 11.4 71.4 - 37.1 Siyambalanduwa 78.1 6.2 - 10.0 - 2.6 Wellawaya 53.5 28.5 12.0 84.0 - 41.6 Kotagama 38.5 59.0 37.5 62.5 - 50.0 Dist. ave. 48.5 40.6 9.2 63.7 - 27.1

About 27% of farmers are involved in work outside their farms. This figure indicates that some farmers who work full-time on the farm, work in some other employment as well; this is possible due to differences in the nature and time-frame of their work. Most of those who have outside employment work as unskilled labourers. Other jobs are divided equally among trading, the public sector, the private sector and self-employment (Table 6.7).

In ASC areas other than Buttala and Badalkumbura, less than 10% of the families report having children who work outside their farms (Table 6.8).

These data show that farmers in this district work primarily on their own farms with considerable assistance from their families. It is common knowledge that most of the farmers are involved as labourers or partners in illegal gem-mining in the jungle. Some are also involved in illegal cultivation of narcotics. These sources of additional income to the family are not reflected in the survey results.


Table 6.7 nature of outside employment of farmer.

Nature of Employment

ASC area Farmers in outside employment ordinary

labourer Skilled labourer Treder Public

Sector Private sector Other

Bibila 4 - - - 4 - - Moneragala 24 4 4 8 2 - 6 Buttala 56 24 4 - - 16 72 Badalkumbura 40 24 2 4 10 - - Siyambalanduwa 12 2 - 2 4 2 2 Wellawaya 42 30 - 8 4 - - Kotagama 12 - 2 4 4 - 2 Dist. ave. 27.1 12.0 1.7 3.7 4 2.8 2.8

Table 6.8 Families reporting children with outside

employment

ASC area

% families

Bibila 4 Moneragala 8 Buttala 16 Badalkumbura 16 Siyambalanduwa 2 Wellawaya 8 Kotagama 4 Dist. ave. 8.3

Land, tenure, farm size Availability of different types of land

Since Moneragala district is in the dry zone, the farming system involves three land types (Table 6.9): lowlands, where paddy is cultivated; highlands, where the homestead and the home garden are located; and chena, where shifting cultivation is practised in highlands. Over 90% of farmers report availability of lowland in two ASC areas, over 70% in three ASC areas, with a district average of 70%. More farmers report having highland than lowland; in fact almost all the farmers have some highland. Table 6.9 Availanility of different types of land

ASC area

Lowland availiability

Highland availiability

Chena availiability

Bibila 98 100 80 Moneragala 78 98 48 Buttala 76 90 50 Badalkumbura 68 94 68 Siyambalanduwa 76 100 32 Wellawaya 60 100 14 Kotagama 96 96 26 Dist. ave. 78.9 96.9 45.5

Results of the Socio-Economic Survey of Maize Cultivation 31 Availability of chenas varies in different parts of the district, depending on the availability of jungle land. While 80% of farmers in Bibila report having chenas only 14% in Wellawaya report the same. Overall, 45% of farmers reported having chena in the survey.

Extent of different types of land tenure

Lowland

In all parts of the district except Buttala, a majority of farmers own their land. In three ASC areas over 70% of farmers own their land, while in another three ASC areas over 50% report the same. On the average, 61 % of farmers have their own land and 19% rent and/or lease land. Nearly one-fifth of the farmers have no lowland (Table 6.10).

Regardless of the tenurial status, the average extent of lowland held by a farmer is approximately 0.5 ha. The average extent of lowland held by farmers in Buttala is a little larger than the district average, and in Badalkumbura it is half the district average (Table 6.11). Table 6.10 Tenurial status of lowland. Unit: % farmers

ASC area

Own land

Rent/lease land

Encroached land

No highland

Bibila 76 20 2 2 Moneragala 58 26 - 22 Buttala 34 42 6 24 Badalkumbura 58 12 2 32 Siyambalanduwa 76 - - 24 Wellawaya 54 6 - 40 Kotagama 74 28 2 4 Dist .Ave 61.4 19.1 1.7 21.1

Table 6.11 Average extent of lowland Unit: % hectares

ASC area Owna Rent/leasea Encroacha Lowlandab

Bibila 0.43 0.22 0.20 0.38 Moneragala 0.51 0.33 0.40 0.51 Buttala 0.64 0.62 0.54 0.67 Badalkumbura 0.24 0.15 0.40 0.24 Siyambalanduwa 0.56 - - 0.56 Wellawaya 0.50 0.83 - 0.50 Kotagama 0.46 0.54 0.61 0.52 Dist .Ave 0.47 0.45 0.45 0.49

a Reporting average b Regardless of tenure

Highland

Almost all the farmers own their highlands and very few have rented or leased land in the highlands. Only 3% of all farmers report having no highlands. Sixteen percent of farmers report encroachments (Table 6.12).

The average extent of highland holdings is larger than that of lowland holdings and


is around 1.3 ha. The Moneragala ASC area reports relatively large highland holdings (2.26 ha) while the area in Bibila is only 0.5 ha (Table 6.13).

Table 6.12 Tanurial status of highland Unit: % farmers

ASC area

Own land

Rent/lease land

Encroached land

No highland

Bibila 100 - - - Moneragala 76 20 18 2 Buttala 80 - 26 10 Badalkumbura 90 2 8 6 Siyambalanduwa 100 - 48 - Wellawaya 90 6 4 - Kotagama 94 2 6 4 Dist .Ave 90 4.3 15.7 3.1

Table 6.13 Average extent of highland Unit: % hectares

ASC area

Owna

Rent/leasea

Encroacha

Lowlandab

Bibila 0.55 - - 0.55 Moneragala 2.08 1.73 1.58 2.26 Buttala 1.28 - 1.40 1.55 Badalkumbura 0.92 0.87 1.56 0.95 Siyambalanduwa 1.37 - 1.19 1.94 Wellawaya 0.90 0.73 1.00 0.90 Kotagama 0.79 0.81 0.57 0.83 Dist .Ave 1.09 1.41 1.22 1.28

a Reporting average b Regardless of tenure

Chena

While 54% of farmers report having no chena, in the ASC areas of Wellawaya and Kotagama, at least seven out of ten farmers have chena. Only a few farmers own land in chenas (16%) and fewer rent or lease in chenas (2%). As chenas are often illegally cultivated jungle patches, 24% of all farmers (i.e., 52% of chena owners) report them as encroached land (Table 6.14).

Table 6.14 Tanurial status of chena Unit: % farmers reporting

ASC area

Own land

Rent/lease land

Encroached land

No highland

Bibila 38 2 20 20 Moneragala 6 4 40 52 Buttala 34 - 18 50 Badalkumbura 12 4 42 32 Siyambalanduwa - - 32 68 Wellawaya 2 2 10 86 Kotagama 20 2 4 74 Dist .Ave 16 2 23.7 54.5

Results of the Socio-Economic Survey of Maize Cultivation 33

The average extent of owned or encroached chena is approximately 0.8 ha. Larger areas are reported in three ASC areas, where the average is greater than one ha. The smallest chena size is reported in Badalkumbura, Kotagama and Bibila ASC areas, where the highland areas are also limited (Table 6.15). Table 6.15 Average extent of chena Unit: % hectars

ASC area

Owna

Rent/leasea

Encroacha

Chenaab

Bibila 0.64 0.40 0.58 0.63 Moneragala 1.48 0.81 1.06 1.14 Buttala 1.40 - 1.16 1.37 Badalkumbura 0.37 0.30 0.53 0.47 Siyambalanduwa - - 1.06 1.06 Wellawaya 0.80 0.60 0.80 0.77 Kotagama 0.61 0.40 0.30 0.55 Dist .Ave 0.88 0.52 0.83 0.91

a Reporting average

b Regardless of tenure

Average farm size

Considering the availability of all three types of land (regardless of the tenure), the average extent of a farm in the survey area is 2 ha. Moneragala ASC area has the largest farm size ( 3.16 ha) followed by Buttala ASC area (2.58 ha). The smallest farm size is in Bibila where the average is 1.29 ha (Table 6.16). The overall average extent of lowland is 0.38 ha, highland 1.24 ha and chena 0.36 ha.

Table 6.16 Average farm size

ASC area

Lowland

Highland

Chena

Farm

Bibila 0.37 0.55 0.36 1.29 Moneragala 0.40 2.21 0.55 3.16 Buttala 0.51 1.39 0.68 2.58 Badalkumbura 0.16 0.89 0.32 1.37 Siyambalanduwa 0.43 0.94 0.34 1.71 Wellawaya 0.32 0.89 0.11 1.32 Kotagama 0.50 0.79 0.14 1.43 Dist .Ave 0.38 1.24 0.36 1.98

Cropping calendar

Lowland

Cultivation possibilities in lowlands depend primarily on the availability of water, the sources of which are irrigation systems (major and minor) and rainfall. As indicated in Table 6.17, 57% of paddy land is cultivated under rainfed conditions and 29% is cultivated using minor irrigation systems. In Siyambalanduwa ASC area almost all the paddy lands are cultivated under rainfed conditions.

The rainfall during the yala season in the dry zone is not as consistent as in the wet zone. Since the sources of water for minor irrigation systems are small tanks,


which are filled by rainfall, both rainfed and minor irrigation paddy cultivation could fail in the yala season. Table 6.18 indicates the growing seasons for lowlands. Most of the paddy lands can be cultivated only in the maha season. Only 22% of paddy lands can be cultivated in both maha and yala seasons. In the Bibila, Moneragala, Siyambalanduwa, Wellawaya and Kotagama ASC areas, over 80% of lowlands are cultivated as paddy only in the maha season.

Farmers report that the maha season commences in the first week of November and ends in the fourth week of March (Table 6.19). The yala season starts in the second week of May and ends in the last weeks of August. However, in Buttala and Wellawaya, farmers reports that the maha season commences about a month ahead of other ASC areas.

Table 6.17 Cultivation of lowland under different types of irrigation Unit: % of total area

ASC area

Under major

irigation Under major

irigation Under rainfed

Bibila - 37.6 62.4 Moneragala 4.5 27.5 68.0 Buttala 57.2 28.1 14.7 Badalkumbura - 72.1 27.9 Siyambalanduwa - 3.8 96.2 Wellawaya 22.1 29.7 48.1 Kotagama - 30.6 69.4 Dist .Ave 14.2 28.7 57.1

Table 6.18 Lowland cultivation calendar. Unit: % total lowland

ASC area

Maha only

Maha and Yala

Bibila 100.0 - Moneragala 82.9 17.1 Buttala 28.2 71.8 Badalkumbura 55.2 44.8 Siyambalanduwa 96.2 3.8 Wellawaya 92.6 7.4 Kotagama 86.8 13.2 Dist .Ave 78.4 21.6

Table 6.19 Lowland cultivation calendar.

Maha Yala

ASC area Starting

period month-week

Ending period

month-week

Starting period month-week

Starting period

month-week

Bibila 11 - 1 3 - 4 - - Moneragala 11 – 1 3 - 4 5 - 1 8 - 3 Buttala 10 - 1 1- 4 5 - 1 8 - 4 Badalkumbura 11 – 2 3 - 4 5 - 1 9 - 1 Siyambalanduwa 11 - 1 3 - 2 - - Wellawaya 10 - 1 2- 3 Not Significant Kotagama 11 -2 3 - 4 5 - 2 9 - 1

Results of the Socio-Economic Survey of Maize Cultivation 35 Highland

Highland is totally dependent on rainfall and is cultivated only in the maha season. Unlike the lowland, farmers cultivate highland with the onset of rains. There is no need to accumulate water as there are no puddling operations. Depending on the rainfall distribution, cultivation in the highlands commences any time during the months of September and October. The season ends in the months of January (last two weeks) and February (Table 6.20).

Table 6.20 Highland cultivation calendar.

Maha Yala

ASC area Starting

period month-week

Ending period

month-week

Starting period

month-week

Starting period

month-week

Bibila 9 - 1 2 – 4 - - Moneragala 10 – 1 1 – 4 - - Buttala 10 – 1 1 – 2 - - Badalkumbura 9 – 2 2 – 2 - - Siyambalanduwa 9 – 2 1 – 2 - - Wellawaya 10 – 2 2 – 4 - - Kotagama 10 - 2 2 - 2 - -

Chena

Since chena is also a highland form of cultivation, the cultivation pattern is similar to that of highland (Table 6.21).

Table 6.21 Chena cultivation calendar.

Maha Yala

ASC area Starting

period month-week

Ending period

month-week

Starting period

month-week

Starting period

month-week

Bibila 9 - 1 2 – 4 - - Moneragala 9 – 4 1 – 4 - - Buttala 10 – 2 1 – 4 - - Badalkumbura 9 – 4 2 – 2 - - Siyambalanduwa 9 – 4 1 – 4 - - Wellawaya 10 – 2 2 – 2 - - Kotagama 10 - 1 2 - 1 - -

Cropping pattern

Lowland During the 1984/1985 maha season all the lowlands (except those held by a few

farmers in Wellawaya who did not cultivate) were cultivated to paddy (Table 6.22). During the 1985 yala season, 74% of the farmers did not cultivate their lowlands, 24% cultivated paddy and only 1.5% cultivated other crops in lowlands. Cultivation of other crops was limited to three ASC areas.


Table 6.22 Crops cultivated in lowland unit: % farmers reporting

1984/1985 Maha 1985 Yala

ASC area Paddy Others

crops No

crops Paddy Others

crops No

crops

Bibila 100 - - - - 100.0 Moneragala 100 - - 23.1 5.1 71.8 Buttala 100 - - 55.3 - 44.7 Badalkumbura 100 - - 61.8 2.9 35.3 Siyambalanduwa 100 - - - 2.6 97.4 Wellawaya 93.3 - 6.6 10.0 - 90.9 Kotagama 100 - - 18.7 - 81.3 Dist. Ave 100 - 1.0 24.1 1.5 74.3

Highland

In the 1984/1985 maha season, 27% of farmers did not cultivate highland. Most of the farmers (54%) cultivated a mixture of crops. (This is the traditional method: depending on the nature of the crops, seeds are mixed or crops are planted in patches, randomly mixed or as underplants). This method is more prominent in Siyambalanduwa, Wellawaya, Buttala and Moneragala ASC areas (Table 6.23). The crops in the mixture differ among ASC areas, but maize is reported as a main crop in all ASC areas. Other main crops are cassava, cowpea, green gram, finger millet, groundnut and long beans (me). Where these crops are not the main crops, they are grown as minor crops in the mixture. Other minor crops are chilli, vegetables and highland paddy. Highland paddy is cultivated by only a few farmers.

Pure stands of crops are cultivated by 31% of farmers in the highlands, with Kotagama ASC area reporting 62.5%. Maize is prominent among the main crops. Other main crops include cassava, tobacco, green gram and cowpea. In Wellawaya ASC area, most farmers cultivate mixed crops; very few have a pure maize stand.

Average area of crops cultivated in highlands is given in Table 6.24. With the exception of Moneragala and Siyambalanduwa, there is little difference between the extent under pure crop stands and under mixed crops within most ASC areas. However, when there is more than one main crop in a pure stand, the area under maize is larger than that of the other pure crops. Table 6.24 Extent of cultivation in highland. Unit hectares

1984/1985 Maha 1985 Yala

ASC area Main

pure crop

Ave extent

II Pure crop

Ave extent

Ave extent crop mix

Main pure crop

Ave extent

Bibila Maize 0.42 Manioc 0.17 0.42 - - Moneragala Maize 0.30 Paddy 0.22 0.43 - - Buttala Maize 0.59 Cowpea 0.22 0.52 Gingelly 0.53

Badalkumbura Maize 0.30 Tobbaco 0.50 0.26 cowpea, groundnut 0.24

Siyambalanduwa Cowpea 0.22 Maize 0.81 0.82 - - Wellawaya - - - - 0.57 - - Kotagama Maize 0.23 - - 0.24 - -

Table 6.23 Cropping pattern in higland – 1984/1985 maha

As a pure crop As a nixed crop ASC area

% Farmers having highland

% Farmers cultivating Main crops

% Farmers cultivating Main crops Other crops

% Farmers not cultivating

Bibila 100.0 10.0 52.0 Kurakkan 32.0

Maize manioc, me

Maize manioc

Moneragala 98.0 18.0 61.2 30.6

Maize, paddy manioc

Maize cowpea Chilli, groundnut kurakkan, vegetables

Buttala 90.0 21.0 76.3 26.6

Maize, cowpea, green gram

Maize, cowpea, green gram

Chilli, groundnut me

Badalkumbara 94.0 10.0 Maize, tobacco 25.5 - 44.7

Maize, finger millet cowpea

Siyambalanduwa 100.0 15 62.0 24.0

Maize, cowpea, paddy

Maize, finger millet

Cowpea, manioc, paddy, chilli

Wellawaya 100.0 1.0 Maize 84.0 Chilli 14.0

Maize, cowpea, groundnut green gram

Kotagama 96.0 30.0 Maize 18.7 manioc 20.8

Maize, finger millet, me

Dis. Ave. 98.86 10.5 - 53.92 27.43


Chena

Unlike the highlands (which are permanent holdings), chena lands are prepared for the season, and hence are almost always cultivated (Table 6.25). All but 1.3% of farmers reported cultivating chena during the 1984/1985 maha season. Since chenas are traditional slash-and-burn systems, chena cultivation uses the traditional method of mixed cropping. Eighty percent of farmers reported mixed cropping in chenas, and in Siyambalanduwa, Bibila and Badalkumb.ura ASC areas almost all farmers had at least a patch of mixed-crop chena. However, many farmers (85%) in Kotagama cultivated chenas with pure crop stands.

Maize dominates as the main crop in chenas as well as in the highlands. In crop mixtures, maize is often the main crop. Main crops other than maize are finger millet, cowpea and green gram. As in the highlands, chilli and highland paddy are minor crops in the mixture. When chenas are cultivated in pure stands, maize is cultivated by many farmers. Other pure-stand crops are chilli, cowpea and vegetables.

The average extent of crop mixture ranges from 0.5 to 0.75 ha. Pure stands of maize range from 1 to 2 ha. Pure stands of other crops are cultivated in smaller areas, ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 ha.

Permanent crops

Highland

Table 6.26 lists the average number of various permanent crops per holding reported for different ASC areas. Bananas are the most widely planted permanent crop in many ASC areas and are planted in larger numbers than other crops. Citrus crops, especially lime, are also cultivated extensively in this district. Sugar-cane for small industries is also a major perennial crop.

Chena

Although chenas are temporary farm lands and are prepared only at the beginning of the maha season, some farmers in a few of the ASC areas have planted permanent crops in chenas. These crops are mainly banana and lime (Table 6.27).

Maize cultivation

Nature of maize crop stands The foregoing analysis indicates that maize is cultivated in Moneragala district

both as a pure stand and as a mixed crop with other food crops. Maize is cultivated in highlands as well as in chenas.

Table 6.28 presents data on the nature of maize crop stands in the highlands in the 1983/1984 and 1984/1985 maha seasons. Similar data for chena lands is shown in Table 6.29.

In both highlands and chena, a mixed cropping system is used by more farmers than the pure stand system. While 71% of farmers owning highlands cultivate maize as a mixed crop, 83% of farmers owning chenas do the same. As explained earlier, the higher percentage of mixed cropping among chena farmers is due to traditional practices.

Table 6.23 Cropping pattern in chena – 1984/1985 maha

As a pure crop As a nixed crop ASC area

% Farmers having highland

% Farmers cultivating Main crops

% Farmers cultivating Main crops Other crops

% Farmers not cultivating

Bibila 60 3.3 96.7 manioc -

Maize

Maize, me, finger millet

Moneragala 48 29.2 83.3 -

Maize, chilli, cowpea, vegetables manioc


Cowpea, green gram, groundnut

Buttala 50 36.0 56.0 80.0

Maize, green gram, cowpea, chilli

Maize, green gram, cowpea Groundnut

Badalkumbara 68 17.6 91.2 -

Maize

Maize, finger millet Cowpea, paddy, chilli

Siyambalanduwa 32 6.2 100.0 -

Paddy, cowpea


Cowpea, chilli, manioc

Wellawaya 14 14.2 85.7 Chilli -

Maize

Maize, groundnut green gram

Kotagama 26 84.6 30.8 Green gram -

Maize

Maize, me finger millet,

Dis. Ave. 45.57 24.16 - 80.54 1.34


Table 6.26 Permanent crops available in highland

ASC area Crop % Farmers reporting

Average no of trees per holding.

Bibila Orange 96 20.4 Lime 96 18.7 Jak 68 5.0 Mango 20 4.4 Drumstick 10 1.6 Coconut 66 8.7 Banana 52 9.8 Moneragala Coconut 90 46.6 Jak 72 11.1 Banana 58 202.4 Lime 48 151.0 Arecanut 8 88.5 Mango 28 5.2 Sugar-cane 14 1.5 (ha) Buttala Banana 62 276.1 Coconut 64 23.8 Mango 28 6.8 Lime 38 156.1 Jak 48 6.7 Sugar-cane 8 0.1 (ha) Drumstick 18 21.9 Badalkumbura Coconut 76 32.0 Banana 42 60.0 Sugar-cane 36 0.5 (ha) Lime 34 86.0 Jak 26 8.9 Mango 24 3.9 Orange 18 10.9 Coco 6 175.0 Coffee 4 0.2 (ha) Cadju nut 2 10.0 Arecanut 2 50.0 Siyambalanduwa Coco 98 29.7 Lime 80 48.5 Banana 96 134.2 Manioc 86 626.7 Sugar-cane 54 1.0 (ha) Mango 94 5.5 Jak 94 8.3 Orange 26 9.2 Wellawaya Banana 46 115.7 Murunga 24 19.2 Lime 16 5.5 Tamarind 10 3.2 Orange 8 4.7 Kotagama Coconut 90 37.4 Lime 44 59.8 Banana 56 43.0 Coffee 14 164.3 ' Jak 38 9.1 Pepper 4 45.0 Dist. Ave 44

Results of the Socio-Economic Survey of Maize Cultivation 41 Table 6.27 Permanent crops available in chena

ASC area Crop % Farmers reporting

Average no. of trees per holding

Bibila - 16.6 333.3 Moneragala - - - Buttala Banana - - Cadju nut 5.5 30.0 Badalkumbura Banana 2.9 1200.0 Coco 2.9 500.0 Siyambalanduwa - 23.0 200.0 Wellawaya - - - Kotagama Lime - - Coconut 30.7 32.5 Pineapple 7.6 100.0 Banana 15.3 35.0

Table 6.28 Nature of maize crop stand - highland. Unit: % farmers reporting

1984/1985 Maha 1983/1984 Maha

ASC area As pure crop As mixed

crop As pure crop As mixed

crop

Bibila 25.0 75.0 19.0 80.9 Moneragala 21.2 78.8 25.0 75.0 Buttala 25.7 74.3 28.6 71.4 Badalkumbura 36.8 63.1 28.6 71.4 Siyambalanduwa 16.2 83.8 16.2 83.8 Wellawaya 2.3 97.7 - 100.0 Kotagama 78.9 21.0 63.0 37.0 Dist. Ave 28.8 71.2 23.7 76.3

Table 6.29 Nature of maize crop stand – chena Unit: % farmers reporting

1984/1985 Maha 1983/1984 Maha ASC area As pure

crop As mixed crop As pure

crop As mixed crop

Bibila 3.3 96.7 10.0 90.0 Moneragala 9.1 90.9 15.8 84.2 Buttala 33.3 66.7 33.3 66.7 Badalkumbura 8.8 91.2 9.7 90.3 Siyambalanduwa - 100.0 - 100.0 Wellawaya 14.3 85.7 14.3 85.7 Kotagama 84.6 15.4 90.0 10.0 Dist. Ave 17.1 82.9 19.1 80.9

Kotagama and Siyambalanduwa areas are the two extremes: in the Kotagama

area, most farmers cultivate maize as a pure stand both in highlands and chenas; in the Siyambalanduwa area almost all farmers cultivate maize as a mixed crop.

These data indicate that the situation in the 1984/1985 maha season was the same as the situation that existed in the 1983/1984 maha season, suggesting that over this period the nature of cultivation has remained static.


Average area

Table 6.30 compares the average area of maize cultivated in highlands under the two methods of cultivation for the 1984/1985 and 1983/1984 maha seasons.

The average extent of maize grown as a pure stand in highlands in the 1984/1985 maha season was 0.42 ha, as it was in 1983/1984. Siyambalanduwa ASC area had the jgreatest average area of maize (0.81 ha) both in pure stands as well as mixed stands. The average area of maize in Kotagama and Badalkumbura ASC areas were 0.23 and 0.26 ha respectively.

The average area of maize cultivated in the highlands as a mixed crop is also similar to that -of pure stands. Further, the figures for the 1983/1984 and 1984/1985 maha seasons were the same. Thus it can be concluded that the overall extent of maize per farm in Moneragala district is 0.4 ha.

Table 6.30 Average extent of maize cultivation -. highland. Unit: hecatres

1984/1985 Maha 1983/1984 Maha

ASC area Pure crop Mixed crop Pure crop Mixed crop

Bibila 0.42 0.41 0.45 0.56 Moneragala 0.30 0.46 0.43 0.43 Buttala 0.59 0.48 0.51 0.51 Badalkumbura 0.26 0.26 0.50 0.25 Siyambalanduwa 0.81 0.80 0.57 9.84 Wellawaya 0.20 0.57 - 0.55 Kotagama 0.23 0.25 0.19 0.24 Dist. Ave 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.45

Maize areas in chena are larger than in highlands (Table 6.31). Overall the extent

of a maize crop in chena is around 0.6-0.7 ha. As in the highlands, there is no difference in the extent of maize in the 1984/1985 and 1983/1984 maha seasons. Also these figures are the same regardless of whether the crop is cultivated as a pure stand or as a mixed-crop stand. However, data for individual ASC areas show that in Moneragala and Buttala the pure stands in chena are much larger than mixed stands. As highlighted earlier, almost all the chenas in Siyambalanduwa are cultivated to mixed-crop stands.

Table 6.31 Average extent of maize cultivation - chena. Unit: hecatres

1984/1985 Maha 1983/1984 Maha

ASC area Pure crop Mixed crop Pure crop Mixed crop

Bibila 0.40 0.62 1.01 0.60 Moneragala 2.23 0.75 1.69 0.72 Buttala 1.08 0.71 0.61 1.48 Badalkumbura 0.20 0.47 0.34 0.46 Siyambalanduwa - 1.02 - 1.64 Wellawaya 0.81 0.67 0.81 0.61 Kotagama 0.28 0.51 0.25 0.20 Dist. Ave 0.66 0.67 0.63 0.74

Results of the Socio-Economic Survey of Maize Cultivation 43 Varieties of maize

Varieties of maize used by farmers in Moneragala district were classified into three categories for analysis:

1. improved: originating from the Department of Agriculture, 2. local: traditional varieties, 3. unknown: farmers do not know the name; presumably mixed types. In highlands during the 1984/1985 maha season, 25% of the farmers cultivated

improved varieties, compared with only 14% in the previous season. Most of the ASC areas show significant changes in the number of farmers shifting to improved varieties. This shift has mainly resulted from reduction in the cultivation of local varieties. Nearly one-third of the farmers cultivate some varieties that are not local, but the type is unknown to them. There was no shift in the use of these varieties over the two seasons observed (Table 6.32).

Table 6.32 Variety of maize cultivated - highland. Unit: % farms under the variety

1984/1985 Maha 1983/1984 Maha

ASC area Improved Local Unknown Improved Local Unknown

Bibila 29.17 37.5 33.3 19.05 47.6 33.3 Moneragala 21.2 51.5 27.3 14.2 53.6 32.1 Buttala 5.7 20.0 74.3 7.1 46.4 46.5 Badalkumbura 31.5 39.8 31.6 6.2 75.0 18.7 Siyambalanduwa 19.3 100.0 - 10.8 89.1 - Wellawaya 2.3 32.6 65.1 2.6 33.3 641 Kotagama 68.4 23.7 7.9 40.7 55.5 37 Dist. Ave 25.4 43.6 31.9 14.4 51.5 341

Table 6.33 shows similar data for varieties of maize cultivated in chenas. There is

no significant difference in the use of local and unidentified varieties between chena and highland. There is a shift towards cultivation of improved varieties in chenas, but the shift is reducing the area under both the local and unknown varieties. However, in certain ASC areas, no farmers in the sample reported cultivating improved varieties in chenas. In these ASC areas, a majority of the farmers cultivated the unknown varieties. In the Kotagama ASC area, a majority of farmers used improved varieties both in highlands and chena.

Table 6.33 Variety of maize cultivated - chena. Unit: % farms under the variety

1984/1985 Maha 1983/1984 Maha ASC area Improved Local Unknown Improved Local Unknown

Bibila 43.3 26.7 30.0 43.3 33.3 23.3 Moneragala 9.0 54.5 36.4 - 693.2 36.8 Buttala - 16.7 83.3 - 16.7 83.3 Badalkumbura 23.5 76.5 - 16.1 74.2 9.7 Siyambalanduwa 6.2 93.8 - 6.2 93.8 - Wellawaya - 28.6 71.4 - 28.6 71.4 Kotagama 61.3 38.5 - 50.0 50.0 - Dist. Ave 22.9 50.7 26.4 18.4 53.4 28.2


Method of planting

Maize is planted in rows or randomly. In highlands, half the farmers plant maize in rows, and in Buttala, Wellawaya and Kotagama ASC areas, 70-100% of farmers cultivate maize in rows (Table 6.34). However, in chenas, the predominant method of cultivation is random planting. Table 6.34 Method of planting maize. Unit: %farmers

Highland Chena

ASC area Row planting Random

planting Row planting Random

planting

Bibila - 100.0 - 100.0 Moneragala 12.1 87.9 4.5 95.5 Buttala 91.4 8.6 77.8 22.2 Badalkumbura 26.3 73.7 5.2 84.8 Siyambalanduwa 27.0 73.0 6.3 93.7 Wellawaya 100.0 - 100.0 - Kotagama 73.7 26.3 61.5 38.5 Dist. Ave 53.28 46.72 25.89 74.10

Source of seed, seed rate and seeding

Seventy percent of the farmers surveyed use their own seed (Table 6.35). In the ASC areas of Buttala, Siyambalanduwa and Wellawaya, over 80% use their own seed.

Nearly 25% of farmers have to replant maize. This is the normal practice, as shown in Table 6.36. In both the 1984/1985 and 1983/1984 maha seasons, about 25% of farmers replanted maize. Farmers gave several reasons for this practice:

1. rotting of seed with rains, 2. drying of seed due to insufficient rain, and 3. seed destroyed by wild animals such as boar, rabbits and lizards.

The seeding rate used is not consistent among different ASC areas or between

highlands and chenas. This is due to many variations in planting methods with respect to space and stand. On the average, between 10 and 12 kg of seed is used to plant one ha of maize (Table 6.37).

Table 6.35 Source of seed - 1984/1985 maha season. Unit: % farmers

ASC area

Own seed

Dept. seed

Form other framers

Bibila 46 34 20 Moneragala 76 14 10 Buttala 82 10 8 Badalkumbura 74 22 4 Siyambalanduwa 98 2 - Wellawaya 84 10 6 Kotagama 32 50 18 Dist .Ave 70.3 20.3 9.4

Results of the Socio-Economic Survey of Maize Cultivation 45 Table 6.36 Number of seedings

% Farmers reporting one

% Farmers reporting

more then one ASC area

1984/1985 Maha 1983/1984

Maha 1984/1985 Maha 1983/1984

Maha

Bibila 88 94 12 6 Moneragala 76 70 24 30 Buttala 50 56 50 44 Badalkumbura 98 90 2 10 Siyambalanduwa 76 84 24 16 Wellawaya 96 78 4 22 Kotagama 50 42 50 58 Dist. Ave 76.3 73.4 23.7 26.6

Table 6.37 Seed rate of maize

ASC area

Seed rate

in highland

Seed rate in chena

Bibila 12.2 13.4 Moneragala 7.9 11.6 Buttala 14.0 12.8 Badalkumbura 12.2 8.54 Siyambalanduwa 9.76 9.76 Wellawaya - 9.15 Kotagama 18.3 16.5 Dist .Ave 10.62 11.68

Cultivation practices

Fertilizer application

Application of fertilizer is very rare in maize cultivation (Table 6.38). Except in Kotagama ASC area, where 48% of farmers have applied fertilizer, very few farmers (28%) have applied fertilizer. The amounts applied are negligible.

In chena, also, application of fertilizer is not common, except in Kotagama.

Table 6.38 Application of fertilizer.

In highland

In chena

ASC area % Farmers applaying fertilizer

Ave.

amount (kg/ha)

% Farmers applaying fertilizer

Ave.

amount (kg/ha)

Bibila 8 4.6 - - Moneragala 2 10.3 - - Buttala 4 9.0 5.6 4.0 Badalkumbura 2 - 6.1 5.5 Siyambalanduwa - - - - Wellawaya 2 40.5 - - Kotagama 48 38.2 46.2 36.1


Weed control

Weed control is practised by all farmers. In highlands, 84% of farmers weed their maize lands once, and the rest weed twice (Table 6.39). The pattern of weeding in chena is similar to that in the highlands (Table 6.40). Pest and disease control

No farmer surveyed has controlled pests and disease. Table 6.39 Weed control in highland. Unit: % farmers

ASC area % farmers' undertaking weed control

% farmers' weeds controlled once

% farmers' weeds controlled

twice

Bibila 100.0 100.0 - Moneragala 100.0 96.6 21.2 Buttala 100.0 48.6 51.4 Badalkumbura 100.0 89.5 10.5 Siyambalanduwa 83.8 83.8 - Wellawaya 100.0 76.7 23.2 Kotagama 100.0 100.0 - Dist .Ave 97.38 83.84 16.16

Table 6.40 Weed control in chena . Unit: % farmers

ASC area % Farmers any weeding % Farmers once % Farmers twice

Bibila 100 100.0 - Moneragala 100 86.4 13.6 Buttala 100 50.0 50.0 Badalkumbura 100 93.9 6.1 Siyambalanduwa 50 43.7 6.3 Wellawaya 100 57.1 42.9 Kotagama 100 100.0 - Dist .Ave 92.8 81.7 18.3

Reasons for lack of cultivation practices

Varieties

The main reasons given by the farmers for not using the recommended or improved varieties of maize are: 1. traditional varieties are better in yield and suitability 69.2%),

2. using own seed is easier and dependable (30.3%),

3. no knowledge of improved varieties (10.6%),

4. small area (1.5%),

5. other (3.0%).

Results of the Socio-Economic Survey of Maize Cultivation 47 Fertilizer

The main reasons given by farmers for not using fertilizer are:

1. lack of money (46.%),

2. no need to apply (21.1 %),

3. a mixed cultivation (14.6%),

4. high cost of fertilizer (8.5%),

5. no knowledge (5.7%),

6. tradition (3.7%). Pest control

In general, there is very little pest and disease damage to maize crops and often the damage does not warrant curative action. Almost all farmers have reported this as the reason for not controlling pests.

Cost of cultivation Cost of cultivation of a hectare of maize is calculated based on the assumptions

given below. 1. Family and hired labour for all the operations are as reported.

2. The amount of watching (which includes the scaring away of birds and monkeys)

reported per farm is adequate regardless of farm size. This assumption is based on the reasoning that there is no linear relationship between amount of labour required for watching and land size. The costs involved are mainly the cost of oil for lamps and fire crackers. The amount of watching reported is for both maize and mixed crops in highland or chena farms, and therefore half the reported watching costs are considered to be for maize.

3. The application of fertilizer is not included in these calculations of cost because fertilizer is used to a significant extent only in Kotagama ASC area.

4. A standard wage rate of Rs 25 and seed cost of Rs 5/kg has been used.

5. Imputed cost includes value added to family labour and seed (in all cases own seed is used).

The cost of cultivation for highland is given in Table 6.41 and for chena in Table

6.42. Cash cost of cultivation is the actual cost incurred by the farmer. Although the imputed full cost of cultivation should take into account the opportunity cost of labour, it is not proper to consider this cost in this analysis as most of the labour reported doesnot accurately reflect labour needed or used. Labour has no opportunity


cost in this subsistence type of farming, it is a tradition for the entire family to contribute labour to the farm. Hence, the questions of surplus labour and efficiency in labour output arise. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for the entire family to stay in the chena during parts of a season, helping to watch for and scare away animals. Under these circumstances, the full components of family labour reported in the tables should not be considered the labour requirement for maize production, nor their imputed cost the cost of cultivation.

Table 6.41 Cost of cultivation of maize –bighland.a Unit: Rs/ha

ASC area

FL for cultivatio operations

FL for watching

HL for cultivatio operations

Power cost (Rs)

Imputed cost of seed (Rs)

Input cost of watching (Rs)

Cash cost of cultivationn

Imputed full COC

Bibila 97 24 2 89 60 33 172 3257 Moneragala 60 14 13 - 39 30 355 2244 Buttala 101 50 15 - 46 40 415 4236 Badalkumbura 106 41 12 - 60 37 337 4072 Siyambalanduwa 103 28 20 - 41 60 560 3876 Wellawaya n.a n.a n.a - n.a n.a - - Kotagama 129 30 - 77 12 912 4964

FL = Family labour HL = Hired labour COC = Cost of cultivation Imputed COC With Imputed value for FL and seed a Ref. explanatory notes in chapter 6 b Cost of seed are different ASC areas c Cost of oil lamps and firecrackers

Table 6.42 Cost of cultivation of maize –chenar Unit: Rs/ha

ASC area

FL for cultivatio operations

FL for watching

HL for cultivatio operations

Power cost (Rs)

Imputed cost of seed (Rs)

Input cost of watching (Rs)

Cash cost of cultivationn

Imputed full COC

Bibila 121 37 - 72 75 54 126 4151 Moneragala 85 22 4 - 338 43 143 2856 Buttala 94 24 15 - 39 35 410 3399 Badalkumbura 65 54 15 - 45 85 460 3480 Siyambalanduwa 66 31 15 - 38 72 447 2910 Wellawaya 51 57 8 - 32 109 309 3041 Kotagama 129 25 21 - 61 9 534 4445

FL = Family labour HL = Hired labour COC = Cost of cultivation Imputed COC With Imputed value for FL and seed a Ref. explanatory notes in chapter 6 b Cost of seed are different ASC areas c Cost of oil lamps and firecrackers

The cash cost of cultivating a hectare of maize in highlands varies from Rs 172 in Bibila to Rs 912 in Kotagama. The actual cost in Kotagama is higher than the figure given above, when the cost of fertilizer (applied by a majority of farmers only in Kotagama), which is about Rs 700/ha, is also considered. However, the situation in Kotagama ASC area is an exception. In general it can be considered that cash cost varies between Rs 172 and Rs 560 with a weighted average of Rs 411/ha.


If an imputed cost is added for family labour and seed, the full cost of cultivation increases to Rs 2244 in Moneragala ASC area and to Rs 4964 in Kotagama, with a simple average of Rs 3500 for all the ASC areas other than Kotagama. The cash cost of cultivation of one ha of maize in chena varies from Rs 126 in Bibila to Rs 534 in Kotagama. The average cash cost is Rs 320. As for highlands, when family labour is imputed using a hired wage rate, the average imputed cost of cultivation in chenas increases to Rs 3400/ha.

Average yield of maize The average yields of maize per ha for the different ASC areas are given in Table

6.43. Overall the average yield in highlands is 1160 kg/ha, which is almost the same as the yield in chena, where the average yield is 1309 kg/ha. For both highlands and chenas the highest yield was recorded in Kotagama ASC area. It should be noted that in this ASC area many farmers used fertilizer, which is not a common practice elsewhere. The yield in highlands in Kotagama is two to four times the yield in other ASC area highlands. However, under chena conditions the yield difference is not as dramatic.

Table 6.43 Average yield of maize. Unit: kg/ha

ASC area Ave. yeild in highland Ave. yeild in

chena

Bibila 1067 1599 Moneragala 844 1378 Buttala 1782 1532 Badalkumbura 1004 609 Siyambalanduwa 1257 1358 Wellawaya 517 1153 Kotagama 2340 1632 Dist .Ave 1160 1309

Crop losses In all ASC areas except Moneragala, more than 50% of the farmers reported crop

losses during the 1984/1985 maha season. In Moneragala ASC area, only 30% reported such losses. The main cause of crop loss is damage by wild animals such as boar, monkeys and birds. Almost all farmers report crop damage caused by wild boar. The second most frequently cited cause is bird damage.

All farmers in three of the ASC areas report that crop losses are common in every season. In three other ASC areas, 60-95% report the same. In Kotagama, only 38% of farmers report that they experience crop losses every year.

Returns on maize cultivation

The average farm gate price of maize is Rs 3.06/kg, which gives the farmers a gross earning of Rs 3550/ha for highlands and Rs 4006/ha for chena (Table 6.44). The average cash cost of maize cultivation is Rs 411 in highlands and Rs 320 in chena. The net earnings are therefore several times the cash investment. The net earnings over full imputed costs are marginal.


Table 6.44 Costs and returns in maize cultivation unit: Rs/ha

Item Under highland cultivation Under chena

cultivation

Cash only cost of cultivation 411 320 Cost of cultivation inclusive of imputed costs 3500 3400 Average yield kg/ha (1160) (1309) Average farm-gate price 3.06 3.06 Gross income 3550 4006 Net income over cash costs 3139 3686 Net income over cost inclusive of imputed costs 50 606

Marketing of maize Market surplus and home consumption

Some maize is consumed by all the farmers. Maize is stored at home in different ways for future consumption and for use as seed in the next season. The most widespread method of storing maize is in cob form in a barn or in the smoke of the kitchen fire. In this manner maize can be stored until the next season. A less popular method is to store the seeds and cobs in sacks.

Thirty-eight percent of the maize produced is consumed at home within a year of harvest (Table 6.45). The market surplus is 60% of the production. The balance (2%) is kept for seed for the next season.

Table 6.45 Home consumption and marketing of maize unit: % of total production

ASC area Home consumed Marketed

Bibila 41 56 Moneragala 37 60 Buttala 32 66 Badalkumbura 44 50 Siyambalanduwa 35 63 Wellawaya 34 63 Kotagama 51 47 Dist .Ave 38 60

Time of marketing

All surplus maize is not sold immediately after harvest. This is possible as maize can be stored more easily than other cereals. As indicated in Table 6.46, 20% of the marketable surplus is sold within two weeks of harvest. Most of the produce is sold in the last two weeks of the first month after harvest. Only 13% of maize available for sale is sold during or after the third month after harvest. This table shows that this pattern is not consistent among the ASC areas.

Ways of marketing maize

Three distinct methods of marketing maize are identified in Table 6.47. The prevalent method is the transport of maize by the farmers to the traders both inside the village and at the bazaar. In certain ASC areas, farmers sell to the co-operatives,

Results of the Socio-Economic Survey of Maize Cultivation 51 Paddy Marketing Board and ASC wherever they collect maize. The second method is to sell to the collecting agents who come to the farm. The third method is to take the produce to the local fair and sell it to collecting agents, who often come from outside the area to collect maize and other produce available during the period.

A majority of farmers have reported that transport facilities are the main constraint they face in the marketing process. They also complain that the prices they receive are not adequate. Little bargaining takes place to decide the prices. The traders decide the prices in advance depending on the local availability of maize and price for maize in Colombo.

Table 6.46 Time of marketing.

% Maize sold

ASC area in 1 -2 week after

harvest

in 3 - 4 week after

harvest

in 2nd week after

harvest

in 3rd week after

harvest

Bibila 16 64 20 - Moneragala 6 40 23 31 Buttala 4 39 12 2 Badalkumbura 5 82 12 1 Siyambalanduwa 3 35 42 20 Wellawaya 26 31 28 15 Kotagama 36 32 11 21 Dist. Ave 20 43 24 13

Table 6.47 Time of marketing.

ASC area Three main methods in order of importance

Bibila 1. Farmers take their produce to traders. 2. Sell to collecting agents coming to farm 3. Sell at the local fair to collectors Moneragala 1. farmers take their produce to traders 2. Sell to the co-operative Buttala 1. Farmers take their produce to traders.

2. Sell to the co-operative and Paddy Marketing Board.

3. Sell to collecting agents coming to farm. Badalkumbura 1. Sell at the local fair to collectors. 2. Sell to Agricultural Service Centre. 3. Sell to collecting agents coming to farm. Siyambalanduwa 1. Sell to collecting agents coming to farm. 2. Farmers take their produce to traders. Wellawaya 1. Farmers take their produce to traders. 2. Sell to collecting agents coming to farm. Kotagama 1. Sell at the local fair to collectors. 2. Sell to collecting agents coming to farm.


Four or five traders were interviewed from each ASC area to obtain an overall view of the marketing of maize in the district. The observations based on these interviews are summarized below. 1. There are no traders who specialize in buying and selling only maize, for the

obvious reason that it is available only in one season each year. All traders in maize are involved in general trade but at different levels of operation. Maize is an important commodity throughout the year for only a few centrally operating traders. For some traders it is important only during the harvesting period, and for most, maize is just one of the many agricultural commodities collected and resold.

2. Traders operating at a higher turnover level employ small traders inside the village to collect maize from farmers. Farmers carry maize to these collecting points and sell it for cash. The main traders collect the produce from the sub-traders. In this situation the main trader fixes his price with the sub-trader and advises him to purchase at a price 25 cents/kg less than the fixed price.

3. In almost all instances, maize is purchased in seed form rather than in cobs. The seed is then sold to collectors coming from Colombo, who work for other traders in Colombo or for the Oils and Fats Corporation which manufactures livestock feeds. Most traders store maize in sacks for a period of one to three months. There are some traders who store maize for six to ten months.

Agricultural extension for maize The spread of agricultural extension services among farmers is indicated in Table

6.48. On the average, 46% of farmers do not receive any extension service. Extension service in maize cultivation is received by only 36% of farmers. In some ASC areas, as few as 6% of farmers receive this service. A majority of farmers in only two ASC areas report receiving extension service on maize.

Table 6.48 Effect of extension service. Unit: % farmers reporting

ASC area Receive extension on maize

Receive extension on other corps maize

Do not Receive any service

Bibila 90 82 10 Moneragala 28 70 30 Buttala 36 62 38 Badalkumbura 32 50 50 Siyambalanduwa 6 4 94 Wellawaya 8 8 92 Kotagama 72 72 28 Dist .Ave 36 46 46

53

7 Statistical Analysis of Variables Affecting Maize Production

Regression analysis is frequently used to fit production functions that reflect variation in output to variations in selected independent variables. This is a useful technique in identifying, as well as studying in quantitative terms, the influence of the explanatory variables on the output.

Average production function for maize The dependent variable, Y, representing output measured in metric tons per farm,

was regressed against a set of independent variables. Production functions were fitted for a sample of 56 farmers cultivating maize as a monocrop in highlands in Moneragala district. Explanatory variables selected for the analysis included the following:

1. Ex = extent planted to maize, in hectares, 2. Lb = labour for weeding and earthing up, in man-days, 3. Ft = cost of fertilizer, in rupees per farm, 4. Ls = extent of output damaged by animals, as a percentage of the total output, 5. D1 = a dummy variable to represent whether the farmer used an improved variety.

If he has used an improved variety, D, = 1. If he has not, D1 = 0; 6. D2 = a dummy variable to represent whether the farmer adopted row planting or

random planting. Transcendental and Cobb-Douglas production functions were considered for

fitting the average production function. The transcendental production function has the advantage of being able to represent all three stages of production, while the Cobb-Douglas function is able to represent only the second stage, in which a firm enjoys positive but diminishing marginal returns, assuming perfect competition. The Cobb-Douglas function represents the rational behaviour of farm producers and it is widely used in empirical agricultural production function analysis. The transcendental function was selected for this study since it represents all three stages of production.

In fitting the transcendental function, some variables were found to be insignificant:

1. dummy variables for row or random planting were insignificant, 2. all the coefficients of the squared terms (CS) were found to be insignificant,

54 Statistical Analysis of Variable Affecting Maize Production

3. coefficients of variables for labour, fertilizer cost and percentage output damaged (bs) were found to be insignificant on the exponent, whereas these variables had significant coefficients (as) in multiplicative form,

4. the variable for land was significant only on the exponent and not in the

multiplicative form.

The production function was fitted after dropping insignificant terms. The estimated "average" production function is given below in logarithmic form.

In Y= - 1.99* + 0.108* InFt - 0.062** InLs+ 2.441*Lb (0.124) (0.019) (0.028) (0.229) +0.393*Dl (0.124)

* Significant 1 % level ** Significant 5% level

R = 0.74 (Standard errors are given within parentheses.)

All the variables in the equation had the expected signs, and the magnitudes of the

coefficients were within reasonable ranges. The significance of land only on the exponent indicates that within the range of these observations, marginal product for additional units of land is increasing. The average extent of land planted to maize in the study area ranged from 0.10 to 1.62 ha. Land was found to be the most important constraint farmers have faced in expanding maize cultivation. This result does not mean that the marginal product of land is ever increasing, but rather that, due to the limited extent of land, farmers were unable to move on to the second stage of the production function. In relation to land input, use of fertilizer and improved maize varieties such as Thai Composite and Badhra was found to contribute positively to farm output. Crop damage by animals, mainly wild boar, was another problem experienced by farmers. The coefficient of the variable representing this damage was found to be negative and significant, as was expected.

Technical efficiency in maize cultivation Given the technology in an area, a wide range of physical performances in maize

production can be expected. There may be farmers who exploit the available technology to the maximum level feasible in a particular environment, and thus obtain the maximum production. These farmers can be said to employ the best-practice technology. The term "best-practice technology" was first used by Salter (1960). Performance of farmers in employing a given technology under a given set of conditions varies owing to the slow adjustment process that accompanies technical change. In small-scale agriculture such variation may be due to the institutional and socio-economic constraints on achieving high levels of production.

Best-practice technology applies not only to the peer group of farmers employing it; conceptually it holds for all the farmers in the domain. Best-practice production levels potentially can be obtained by other farmers if they employ the best-practice

Statistical Analysis of Variable Affecting Maize Production 55

technology. Therefore, the best-practice or the frontier technology can be considered as the observed standard with which performance of individual farms can be compared.

The best-practice production function was estimated using a corrected ordinary least squares method of estimating the frontier production function. The actual yields obtained by farmers were checked against the best yield obtained from the frontier. This gave a value for technical efficiency for each farmer.

Mean technical efficiency for the sample was found to be 52%, which indicates that the total maize output can be almost doubled if farmers can be encouraged to use the best-practice technology by the removal of socio-economic constraints that prevent them from doing so. A frequency distribution of farm-specific technical efficiency measures seems to follow a normal distribution. Nearly 25% of farmers sampled were found to be in the technical efficiency range of 0.51-0.60 and about 58% were within the 0.41-0.70 range.

Socio-economic factors explaining variations in technical efficiency

A linear regression model was employed to estimate the relationship that exists between farm-specific technical efficiency values and some selected socio-economic variables. The following variables were used in the analysis: TEi = measured technical efficiency of farm I, X1 = number of years of formal education, X2 = total extent of chena operated, X3 = total income from paddy in maha season 1984/1985, D = dummy variable to represent wether the farmer received extension support (D = 1) or not (D = 0) Ei = random eror term with classical properties

Except for the variable income from paddy, all variables were found to be significant. Exposure to agricultural extension on maize cultivation and number of years of formal education were found to contribute positively to technical efficiency. Amount of land operated in chena was also found to be significant and positively related to technical efficiency. Maize was the main crop cultivated in chena in the maha season 1984/1985. Maize is planted in chena and in highland more or less at the same time. Therefore a farmer having a larger extent of chena can be expected to be more specialized in maize production than a farmer who has a smaller extent of chena. As a result farmers with larger areas of chena may possess skills and knowledge that lead to a higher level of technical efficiency on highlands as well.

Correlation among variables To illustrate the behaviour of certain key pairs of variables, an analysis of the

correlation between them is presented in the following sections. Three key variables have been considered as the independent variables and are correlated with other relevant dependent variables. These three variables are family size, farm size and labour.


Family size and land availability

Family size is divided into three categories: small, medium and large (this is an arbitrary division depending on data values). The average family size in the small group is 2.0 (n = 58), medium group, 5.6 (n = 231) and large group 8.9 (n = 61).

Table 7.1 presents the relationship of family size to availability of land. More farmers with small families have chena only, while more farmers with medium and large families have highland only. However there is no difference with respect to the percentage of farmers having both highland and chena. Approximately 40% of farmers in any family-size category own both highland and chena. Table 7.1 Family size and land availability

% Farmers

Family Size

With highland only

With chena only

With both highland and chena

Total

Small - ave. 2.0 48.3 12.1 39.6 100

(n = 58) Medium - ave. 5.6 60.2 2.2 37.6 100

(n = 231) Large - ave. 8.9 55.7 1.6 42.7 100

( = 61) Family size and land area

The average extent of highland, chena and upland (both highland and chena) per family with respect to family size categories is given in Table 7.2. In each family-size category, families having both highland and chena have larger average area of land than do families having either highland only or chena only. Farmers having chena only have the lowest average area of land.

In each land category medium families have the lowest average area of land, followed by small families. This relationship is evident with respect to both global averages of area as well as reporting averages. However the differences between land area in each category of land are insignificant. Table 7.2 Family size and land area. Unit: hectares

Family size Ave. highland area

Ave. chena area

Ave. upland area

1.25 0.51 1.76 Small - ave. 2.0 (n =58) (1.39) (1.0) (1.76)

1.15 0.30 1.44 Medium - ave. 5.6 (n =231) (1.17) (0.74) (1.44)

1.42 0.50 1.89 Large - ave. 8.9 (n =61) (1.45) (1.1) (1.89)

Note: Average are global for the group. Reporting averages are given in parentheses.


Family size and area of maize cultivated

Farmers do not cultivate the full extent of highland or chena available in maize. The area under maize was matched with family size to determine the relationship between these variables. Table 7.3 presents the relevant data. Large families having chena only or having both highlands and chena cultivate larger area of maize than do medium and small families. This difference is not prominent among farmers having highland only.

Table 73 Family size and area of maize cultivated. Unit: hectares

Family size Ave. maizze

extant in highland

Ave. maizze extant in

chena

Ave. total maize extant

0.43 0.61 0.54 Small - ave. 2.0 (n = 58)

0.51 0.60 0.56 Medium - ave. 5.6 (n = 231)

0.46 0.97 0.73 Large - ave. 8.9 (n = 61)

Family size and maize stand in highland

The relationship between family size and maize stand is indicated in Table 7.4. Approximately 45% of farmers in each category of family size cultivate maize in a mixed stand.

Table 7.4 Family size and maize stand in highland.

Family size % Farmes cultivating maize in highland

As pure stand

As mixed stand

58.6 13.8 44.8 Small - ave. 2.0 (n = 58)

62.8 17.3 45.5 Medium - ave. 5.6 (n = 231)

73.8 26.2 47.6 Large - ave. 8.9 (n = 61)

Family size and marketable surplus

Marketable surplus of maize, as well as the relationship between family size and ability to have a surplus for marketing, is analysed in Table 7.5. Regardless of family size, 74-80% of farmers market their produce. Large families have a greater surplus than do medium and small families. Large families cultivate larger areas of maize.

Farm size and other variables

In the following sections farm size is correlated with other relevant variables. Farm size has been considered in the following forms:

1. lowland area,


2. highland cultivated in maize, 3. chena cultivated in maize, and

4. total area cultivated in maize

Table 7.5 Family size and marketable surplus Family size % Farmes reporting

sales Ave. amt. sold (kg)

(rep. ave)

75.8 556 Small - ave. 2.0 (n = 58)

80.0 456 Medium - ave. 5.6 (n = 231)

73.7 775 Large - ave. 8.9 (n = 61)

Lowland area and extent of maize

The correlation between the extent of lowland and the extent cultivated in maize (total in both highland and chena) is shown in Table 7.6. There is a positive correlation between the extent of lowland and the extent of maize, (possibly indicating that the additional income from paddy could sustain a larger area of maize). However, farmers with no lowland also have fairly large areas under maize.

Table 7.6 Lowland extent and total extent of maize cultivated. Unit : hectares

Lowland extent Ave. extent cultived in maize

(highland + chena)

0.66 No lowland (n = 76)

0.48 Small - ave. 0.20 (n = 103)

0.57 Medium - ave. 0.45 (n = 122)

0.70 Large - ave. 1.18 (n = 491)

Highland maize extent and productivity

The correlation between the extent of highland cultivated in maize and the productivity of maize in highland is shown in Table 7.7. Small areas of maize show a greater efficiency in productivity, which decreases and becomes constant as the area increases.

Chena maize extent and productivity

The relationship between chena maize extent and productivity is opposite to the relationship observed for highland maize extent, (Table 7.8). The efficiency of chena maize increases as maize extent increases and becomes constant at medium and large levels.


Table 7.7 Highland maize extent and maize productivity.

Highland maize extant (ha) Average maize productivity (kg/ha)

1768.8 Small - ave. 0.191 (n = 78)

1069.2 Medium - ave. 0.455 (n = 96)

1049.9 Small - ave. 0.191 (n = 55)

Table 7.8 Chena maize extent and maize productivity

Chena maize extant (ha) Average maize productivity (kg/ha)

1305.8 Small - ave. 0.193 (n = 22)

1674.7 Medium - ave. 0.447 (n = 63)

1640.7 Small - ave. 1.113 (n = 54)

Total maize extent and maize stand in highland

The relationship between total maize extent and the maize stand in highland is indicated in Table 7.9. Of the three categories of maize cultivation (small, medium and large), more farmers with large areas of maize cultivate in highland, followed by those having small areas of maize.

Overall, 45-52% of farmers cultivate maize as a mixed crop regardless of the total maize extent cultivated.

Table 7.9 Total maize extent and maize stand in highland.

Total maize extant (highland + chena)

% Farmers cultivating maize in highland As pure stand As mixed stand

68.4 22.3 46.1 Small - ave. 0.31 ha (n = 206)

56.7 12.3 44.4 Medium - ave. 0.74 ha (n = 97)

70.1 18.0 52.1 Small - ave. 1.45 (n = 47)

Total maize area and marketable surplus

There is a positive relationship between the total maize extent and percentage of farmers reporting sales and the amount of maize sold (Table 7.10). In farms with large areas of maize, 95% of the farmers sell their produce. In small farms, only 68% sell the produce.

The average amount of maize sold also varies in relation to the maize extent. small farms sell, on the average, 284 kgs while large farms sell an average of 1346 kg.


Table 7.10 Total maize area and marketable surplus.

Total maize extant (highland + chena)

% Farmers suporting sales

Ave. amt. sold (kg) (rep. ave)

68.4 284.3 Small - ave. 0.0.31 ha (n = 206)

90.7 490.5 Medium - ave. 0.74 ha (n = 97)

95.7 1346.3 Small - ave. 1.45 ha (n = 47)

Total maize area and farm gate price

Farm gate price is independent of the total maize extent (Table 7.11). Regardless of the extent of maize under cultivation, the average price is about Rs 3/kg.

Table 7.11 Total maize area and farm gate price.

Total maize extant (highland + chena) Ave. farm gate price

(Rs/kg)

3.08 Small - ave. 0.0.31 ha (n = 206)

3.09 Medium - ave. 0.74 ha (n = 97)

2.99 Small - ave. 1.45 ha (n = 47)

Labour use and productivity in highland

In highland, an increase in labour use results in a decline in maize productivity When labour use increases twofold, productivity decreases slightly, but when labour use increases threefold, the productivity decreases by half (Table 7.12).

Table 7.12 Labour use and maize productivity - highland

Total labour use per ha Average maize productivity

(kg/ha)

1462.8 Few - ave. 48.46 man - days (n = 74)

1305.7 Moderate - ave. 97.9 man - days (n = 101)

764.9 More - ave. 158.1 man - days (n = 54)

Labour use and productivity in chena

The relationship between labour use and productivity in chena conditions is not as consistant as it is in highland. As labour use increases from few labour units to moderate, productivity increases, but then decreases with further intensification of labour use (Table 7.13).


Table 7.13 Labour use and maize productivity -chena.

Total labour use per ha Average maize productivity

(kg/ha)

1679.3 Few - ave. 60.6 man - days (n = 16)

1824.1 Moderate - ave. 103.6 man - days (n = 49)

1427.6 More - ave. 159.5 man - days (n = 74)

63

8

Constraints on Maize Production

Available technology Maize production in Sri Lanka is still below the national requirement and maize is

cultivated at subsistance levels with few or no inputs. It is cultivated in highlands under the slash-and-burn system of land preparation called chena and in nearby permanent highlands with almost the same primitive cultivation practices used in chena. However, technology has been developed and is available to the farmers to cultivate maize in a more scientific manner in order to obtain higher productivity and production.

The development of new technology for maize cultivation commenced more than three decades ago in the 1950s in one agricultural research station in Sri Lanka, and later was entrusted to seven agricultural research stations with the regionalization of agricultural research. One of the main aims of the maize research programme was to develop a variety that would give high yields, mature in 3 to 3'/i months, and have tolerance to drought and diseases. A variety of maize that fulfilled most of these requirements was developed from Thai Composite in 1974 and released in 1977 under the name Bhadra 1. This variety gave 23% higher yield over the varieties selected in the early 1960s. Bhadra 1 was introduced to farmers as an improved variety for mass cultivation. Subsequently, better varieties have been selected and are in the final stages of evaluation.

Fertilizer trials were conducted to obtain the optimum yield from Bhadra 1. After several fertilizer experiments, optimum levels of N, P and K were determined, as well as split levels of application, and this information was passed to the farmers as a recommendation. Recommendations are also available on optimum plant density, which depends on the level of fertilizer farmers intend to apply.

Different methods of weed control under chena and highland farming conditions have been evaluated. Weeding at land preparation time, weeding with intercultivation and weeding with herbicides have been evaluated and the results are available to farmers as improved technologies.

Research on breeding for better varieties and on agronomy is continuing.

Constraints In spite of the available technology, farmers in Moneragala district face many

constraints that hinder expansion of land under maize cultivation as well as productivity. While some constraints affect either extent or productivity, others affect both. All the constraints can be grouped under two main categories: non-economic constraints; and economic constraints.

Non-economic constraints Most of the constraints can be discussed under this category. They are those that

affect maize production without having a direct bearing on its costs and returns.

Constraints on Maize Production 64

In the dry zone of Sri Lanka, cultivation of chena is an ancient system. There has been a large amount of development in the agricultural sector in the form of high-technology commercial farming, especially for the cultivation of paddy and highland crops such as potato, chilli and onions. However, the chenas of today are cultivated in much the same way as chenas were in the past. Chenas are not owned, but are encroached land; therefore the incentive is not permanent development, but rather to obtain produce with the least cost. Lowland provides many farmers with rice, and most farmers concentrate on paddy cultivation and give low priority to chena cultivation. Chenas are cultivated under high risk of uncertainty of rain and certainty of damage from wild animals. Under such conditions, farmers do not invest in high technology.

Cultivation of maize and chena agriculture were synonymous as maize was one of the primary crops under this system of agriculture. Just as the chena system remains unchanged the method of cultivation of maize, its primary crop, also remains unchanged.

The chena system of maize cultivation will be modified or eliminated only when maize becomes important as a cash crop. Chilli, green gram, cowpea and vegetables such as beans, and eggplant, once cultivated as traditional chena crops, are now cultivated in both chenas and highlands as commercial crops. Other crops such as maize, finger millet, other small millets, sorghum and some melons have not become cash crops and are still cultivated as subsistance crops in chenas.

Shortage of land

Farmers own or lease highland that is cultivated in many crops, both seasonal and perennial. Any increase in extent of maize cultivation will reduce the extent of other crops. This balance is governed by the relative net returns of these crops or by physically increasing the area of chenas. By law new lands cannot be cleared for chena. Also, most of the land suitable for chena has already been cleared and cultivated. Thus there is a shortage of land on which to increase the extent under maize cultivation.

Shortage of labour

Farmers allocate resources relative to the potential income from different enterprises. In the case of maize cultivation, since its net income is marginal (inclusive of the cost of labour), farmers use mostly family labour for all the operations. If the extent of land under maize is increased, farmers have to hire labour (under rainfed conditions all lands have to be prepared and cultivated at the same time) and this they can do only if they get a higher turnover from maize cultivation. Given the current costs and returns, farmers are reluctant to employ hired labour for maize cultivation.

Crop loss

Crop loss is inevitable in the present system of maize cultivation: A majority of farmers experience crop loss every year. The main causes of crop loss are wild animals and birds.

If crop loss is to be reduced to increase the productivity and total production of maize, farmers must take action against the causes of the loss. This means employment


65

of more labour and increases in costs. Unless these greater costs are recovered through better market prices and net returns, farmers will be reluctant to change the current system.

Agricultural extension and other institutional supports Most other non-economic constraints facing farmers of maize are directly or

indirectly connected with agricultural extension and other institutional supports. Considering the impact of other non-economic and economic constraints, improvements in agricultural extension and other institutional supports alone will not solve all the problems of maize cultivation. Non-availability of good seeds

It was shown that on the average nearly 70% of the farmers use their own seed, and in some ASC areas this proportion is over 80%. Use of this seed affects productivity. A good extension programme could influence the farmers to use more certified seed. Cultivation of traditional varieties

Only 25% of farmers cultivate improved varieties, while others resort to local varieties or varieties of unknown origin. When asked why they do not cultivate improved varieties, about 10% of these farmers said they have no knowledge of improved varieties and 30% use their own seed (this could imply that improved seed is not available to these farmers).

Cultivation of varieties of maize other than improved varieties, together with farmers' use of their own seed, could be considered major agronomic constraints on increasing production of maize. Non-application of fertilizer

Except in one location studied, fertilizer is generally not applied. This is another agronomic constraint that hinders increase in production. Plant establishment

Plant establishment itself is sometimes a constraint on increase in production. Often maize is cultivated as a mixed crop and does not receive the attention it would receive as a monocrop. Nearly 15% of farmers indicated that they do not apply fertilizer to maize, as maize is only one of the crops in a crop mixture. Lack of capital

Fertilizer is the main input that requires capital. Nearly half the farmers surveyed indicated lack of cash (including credit facilities) as one of the reasons for not investing in fertilizer. Thus, poor purchasing power of farmers is also a constraint on increasing production.

Multiple seedings Nearly 25% of farmers surveyed must replant maize, mainly due to rotting of

seeds in heavy rains, drying of seeds in drought and destruction of seeds by wild animals.

Constraints on Maize Production 66

These causes are beyond the control of farmers, but poor quality of seed could also be a cause for replanting. Poor quality may be due to the farmers use of their own seed over a long period of time.

Farmers could minimize the number of seeds destroyed by animals by watching during the germination period. However, this extra cost would make production unprofitable given the present net returns.

Improvements needed in extension service The need for the agricultural extension service to be more involved in the

improvement of maize cultivation was pointed out in the sections above. Some of the reasons given for non-use of improved varieties, such as "no

knowledge of improved varieties", and for non-use of fertilizer, such as "no necessity to apply fertilizer", could be attributed to inadequate extension services.

Economic constraints There are three main economic constraints on the improvement of maize

production: poor net returns from maize cultivation; alternative opportunities for land; and alternative opportunities for labour.

Poor net returns from maize cultivation It was shown earlier that net returns from maize are marginal. If the full cost of

family labour is calculated, the net return from a hectare of maize is only Rs 50 under highland cultivation and Rs 606 under chena cultivation. If the more accurate cost of family labour is calculated as 75% of its market value, the net returns are Rs 820 and Rs 1375 respectively from a hectare of maize.

The net returns to farmers under the present marketing system are not attractive enough to increase maize production.

Alternative opportunities for land The land used for maize cultivation could be used to cultivate other crops, many

of which would give a better income than maize. A comparison of net returns for a few such crops during a single season showed that maize (in its present form of cultivation) has very little advantage over other crops (Table 8.1). Given the current market system and the crops available to them, farmers are reluctant to invest more in maize cultivation.

Table 8.1 Net retnrns of alternate crops.

Net returns including 75% of family labour Net returns over cash costs only Crop

cost (Rs/ha) (Rs/ha)

Maize (highland) 820 3139 (chena) 1375 3686 Cowpea 2163 5297 Green gram 1367 6076 Groundnut 3024 5619 Chilli 4888 9962

Note: Data for crops other than maize are for the 1984/1985 maha season for adjoining ditrics


67

Alternative opportunities for labour The extra labour that would be required to expand maize cultivation could be

alternatively employed to obtain better remuneration in the cultivation of other crops as well as in gem-mining. Many farmers are involved in illegal gem-mining in the jungle, which gives a much higher income than the cultivation of maize. Gem-mining is labour intensive, and leaves less labour for cultivation of crops.

Constraints - overall effect These constraints are categorized as non-economic and economic constraints for

ease of description, but all constraints together affect the improvement of maize cultivation. Solving each constraint individually will not lead to the. desired results as all constraints are related.

For example, in order to solve the economic constraint of low net returns, seed distribution, dissemination of information on technology, and market prices must all be improved. Similarly farmers will not buy fertilizer unless there is a substantial net return from the investment. Thus, constraints must be resolved taking into consideration all aspects of maize cultivation.

69

9 Policy Recommendations

The study highlights constraints that are facing the maize producer in the Moneragala district of Sri Lanka. It can be assumed that these difficulties are faced by producers of maize in other districts as well. Unless specific policy measures are applied, an increase in production cannot be anticipated in the near future.

The demand for maize as a direct consumer good is both price and income inelastic. Consequently, substantial increases in human consumption cannot be expected. This indicates that future demand will be in the livestock industry. Policy decisions to encourage the use of local maize products instead of imported maize products would encourage producers to increase their production levels. Such a policy must be accompanied by guaranteed prices.

Maize cultivation is marginally economic. Consequently, any increase in production will be possible only if maize is more profitable than other competitive crops.

In order to increase productivity of maize, better varieties and organized extension must be provided to the farmers. Although most of the farmers surveyed are content with the traditional varieties, strong extension programmes should be organized to teach the value and importance of improved varieties.

There is also a need for better credit and marketing facilities. Most farmers surveyed do not use fertilizer due to lack of money. Consequently, extension effort with new varieties will not prove very successful if it is not co-ordinated with the use of better inputs, for which credit is essential. Credit institutions must be encouraged in Moneragala.

A major constraint faced by most farmers is the lack of adequate transport facilities for marketing. Measures must be taken to find alternate uses for maize. At present its use is limited to human consumption in rural areas and to livestock feed. Alternative uses such as flour and oil must be studied and encouraged.

71

Glossary

ASC Agricultural Service Centre

Anicut Raised irrigation water distribution canals

Arecanut Betel nut CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (Mexico) Chena A highland agricultural system using a slash-and-burn method of

cultivation Coco Cocoa Gingelly Sesame

Jak Jackfruit

KVSS Village-level extension officers

Kurakkan Finger millet

Maha Illuppallama Main agricultural research station Maha Season of rainfall from November to January, caused by the

northeast monsoon

Manioc Cassava

Me Long beans

Rupee (Rs) Sri Lankan currency Rs 22.00 = US$ 1

SSC Senior School Certification

T&V Training and Visit (a system of agricultural extension) Yala Season of rainfall from May to September, caused by the

southwest monsoon.

73

References

Central Bank of Sri Lanka. 1985. Annual

report. CIMMYT Review, 1974: 51-52. Handawela, J. 1985. Fertilizer management in upland rainfed maize in the dry zone of

Sri Lanka. Paper presented at a Workshop on Fertilizer Use in Maize in Sri Lanka, Feb. 22, 1985, at the Agricultural Research Station, Maha Illuppalama, Sri Lanka.

Mahaweli Ganga Development Project. Feasibility study. Vol. 2, Agriculture. Segreah,

Grenoble, France. Panabokke, C.R. and A. Walgama. 1974. Application of rainfall confidence limits to

crop water requirements in dry zone agriculture in Sri Lanka. J. Natn. Sci. Coun. Sri Lanka 2(2): 95-113.

Salter, W.E.G. 1960. Productivity and technical change. London: Cambridge

University Press. Sithamparanathan, J. 1958. Improvement of highland crops in the Dry Zone, Part I -

Cereals and millets, Trop. Agric. CXIV.: 19-28. Sri Lanka. Department of Agriculture. 1985. Cost of cultivation of agricultural crops -

maha 1984/1985. Agricultural Economics Study 39. Sri Lanka. Department of Census and Statistics. 1981. Census of population and

housing. ________. 1982. Census of agriculture.

maize production in sri lanka

Documents

maize production

maize research

imports of maize

marketing of maize

survey of maize cultivation

average yield of maize

sri lankan

cost of cultivation