The Improved Paddy-Prawn System

Farmers in some parts of Indonesia have long applied a combination of paddy and fish. The farmers traditionally developed this system. In West Java, the paddy-fish system is called “minapadi”, which involves an annual rotation of paddy-fish, other crops and fish-maize (“fish-palawija”). “Minapadi” is usually applied in irrigated rice fields (de la Cruz, 2001a). In East Java, the system is known as “sawah tambak” or “brackishwater”, or “ricefield pond” system (de la Cruz, 2001b, see Figure 5.2 & 5.3;

Muhariyanto & Arianto, 2005). In this system, farmers rely on rainwater to grow an annual rotation of fish-fish-paddy for the cycle of the wet season, the first and the second periods of the dry season respectively (Pratomo, Kasijadi, Muhariyanto, Krisunari, & Saraswati, 2004).

Figure 5.3 The components of “sawah tambak” in East Java

Ricefield pond Source: de la Cruz (2001b)

The ricefield-pond system is used by around 15,000 farm households (de la Cruz, 2001b) in coastal areas (de la Cruz, 2001a), or areas near a river or sea canal

(Muhariyanto & Arianto, 2005) of East Java Province. The area of ricefield-pond in East Java Province is 31,982 hectares (Pratomo et al., 2004), and the largest area is located in Lamongan Residency at around 16,000 hectares (Muhariyanto & Arianto, 2005). The types of fish cultured (monoculture or polyculture) include milkfish (Chanos chanos), silver barb (Barbades gonionotus), common carp (Cyprinus carpio

L), and tilapia (Tilapia mosambica/African tilapia and Oreochromis niloticus

Niloticus/Nile tilapia); while for prawn, the variety is tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon

Fabricius) (Pratomo et al., 2004).

Peripheral canal/trench Nursery/holding place for milkfish

Peripheral dike Temporary place

for milkfish

Nursery/holding place for silver barb

Temporary place for silver barb

Farmers in Lamongan Regency were among the pioneers intercropping paddy and prawn; this system has since been used in other coastal regencies such as Gresik, Sidoarjo, Bangkalan and Tuban (Pratomo et al., 2004). The basic principles of paddy- prawn intercropping are the same as the “minapadi” system. Paddy is first planted in the field, and seven days later, prawn post-larva is transferred into the canal

surrounding the paddy field (Muhariyanto, Pangarso, Supriyono, Astuti, & Krissunari, 2001). Although the prawns are kept in the canal, they can move around the paddy field to find food or shelter at midday. Prawns rely on microorganisms in the paddy field, particularly if the farmers apply manure or other organic fertilizers. Paddy may also benefit from the intercropping as the water height required for maintaining the prawn growth can suppress the growth of weeds. The prawn remains (dung and old skin) may also improve soil conditions in the paddy field.

The prawns are harvested after 60 days in the canal; while the rice is usually harvested after 90 days (Wonocolo Dissemination Laboratory of East Java AIAT, 2004a). The canal is drained so that the prawns can be collected. The prawn harvest may indicate the time for gradually reducing the water height in the paddy field. However, some farmers may also build a small ridge surrounding the paddy field during the prawn harvest to maintain water height for the paddy reproductive stage (flowering and grain development). A similar system has also been developed in other countries such as Bangladesh (Ahmed & Shamsuddula, 2002; Chapman & Abedin, 1998) and Vietnam (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), 2003; Hung, 2001; Phuong, Son, Toan, Hien, & Duc, 2001), involving tiger prawn, or freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii).

In 2000, the AIAT conducted a pilot project of an improved paddy-prawn system (“pandu”) in Rejosari with the aim to increase farmers’ income. The system consists of four main recommendations: (1) land preparation and the canal dimension

(“caren”), (2) paddy sowing and prawn post-larva distribution techniques, (3) balanced fertilizer application, and (4) the application of plant-based pesticides and water height management (Santoso et al., 2003). The AIAT then used the evaluation of the pilot project to enhance the system further, and the results were disseminated to

farmers in Sugihwaras in 2004. The latter improvement has standardized practices with recommendations on (Muhariyanto et al., 2001; Wonocolo Dissemination Laboratory of East Java AIAT, 2004a):

a) high yielding paddy varieties and the quality of prawn post-larva; b) paddy seed requirement and seedling techniques;

c) land preparation techniques, including the dimension of the canal (“caren”); d) a planting distance technique (“jajar legowo”), and procedures of transferring

prawn post-larva into the canal; e) fertilizer dosages and application; f) water management practices; and

g) monitoring and controlling, including the application of plant-based pesticides.

The AIAT disseminated “pandu” (the improved paddy-prawn system) to farmers in the two villages through farmer group meetings, printed material (manuals) and demonstration plots. The AIAT also provided technical assistance, paddy seeds and prawn post-larva. An evaluation of the program conducted in 2003 indicated that about 31 percent of participating farmers had applied at least one component of “pandu”; while the proportion of non-cooperating farmers was around 14 percent (Santoso et al., 2003). In total, 332 farmers on 301 hectares of ricefield pond had applied “pandu” in the season when the evaluation was conducted, with a total

production of 150.9 tons of un-milled rice and 12 tons of prawn (Santoso et al., 2003).

From the financial perspective, “pandu” performance appeared to vary. Based on the farm analysis in the technical guidelines of the improved paddy-prawn system

("pandu", see Muhariyanto et al., 2001), the application of “pandu” was claimed to increase costs by 5.09 percent. However, this was compensated by a 38.55 percent increase in the revenue (sales) mainly due to the dual commodities. These figures were obtained through comparison with the farmers’ traditional system. The analysis, however, did not include fixed costs (land and depreciation), and the price of prawn appeared to be lower (IDR 30,000/kg) compared to the normal price between IDR 45,000 to IDR 55,000. This price level might indicate smaller sized prawn produced

by the farmers, or the minimum price of prawn that the farmers could get. The analysis also showed an B/C (benefit-cost) ratio of 3.45, although a closer check on each component revealed a lower B/C ratio of 2.73 (both ratios excluded fixed costs). This analysis seemed to be based on the trial in Rejosari. In Sugihwaras, one “pandu” trial plot showed a B/C (benefit-cost) ratio of 1.069 with 55 percent of the profit coming from prawn (Wonocolo Dissemination Laboratory of East Java AIAT, 2004b); there were no records for the second trial plot. Such a ratio was mediocre considering that the objective of introducing “pandu” was to increase the farmers’ income.

The latter aspects may raise a question on whether “pandu” is an ideal case to study. Such doubt, however, can be adequately tackled using the complexities surrounding “pandu” application. These include the potential of “pandu” as a more productive income-generating activity since prawn has a higher market price than milkfish and other secondary products in the ricefield-pond. “Pandu” also contains different components that are more standardized and advanced than the traditional system. These aspects provide opportunities for learning how the farmers respond to a technology package that is only slightly improved relative to their common practices and experiences; and how relevant changes and modifications in the farmers’ decision making process occur. The latter was suggested by the different degrees of adoption as identified in the evaluation of ”pandu” in 2003. Different processes of technology transfer might also occur, and this included a farmer-to-farmer technology transfer as some non-cooperating farmers also applied “pandu”. However, even if the farmers had applied all the “pandu” components, they might revise their decisions.

Assumptions about the reasons may be made, but no one has tried to explain the evidence from the farmers’ point of view.

All seem to confirm the need for further research in delineating the motives behind the farmers’ adoption behaviour. The farmers’ perceptions and decision rules should be focused on as they may well provide a better understanding of the farmers’

behaviour and suggest ways to improve the farmers’ adoption-decision making capacity.