• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Main
 Reference
 Tables






Group Title: Conference on Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research and Extenion, University of Florida, February 26 to March 1, 1986
Title: Effects of Farming System Research and Extension on farm families
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00081715/00001
 Material Information
Title: Effects of Farming System Research and Extension on farm families
Series Title: Conference on Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research and Extenion, University of Florida, February 26 to March 1, 1986
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Halim, Abdul
Publisher: University of Florida
Publication Date: 1986
 Subjects
Subject: University of Florida.   ( lcsh )
Spatial Coverage: Asia -- Bangladesh
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00081715
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front cover
    Title Page
        Title page
    Table of Contents
        Table of contents
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
    Reference
        Page 20
    Tables
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
Full Text











W-7--:- ------''


yV.;1 -at th6 LrsrverTsCbf 446Hd _
Conference on
GENDER ISSUES IN FARMING SYSTEMS
RESEARCH AND EXTENSION









I


THE EFFECTS OF FARMING SYSTEM RESEARCH AND
EXTENSION ON FARM FAMILIES








(Paper presented in conference on Gender
Issues in Farming Systems Research and
Extension held during February 26-March 1,
1986'at the University of Florida, Gainesville
Florida)














Abdul Halim

M. Hazrat Ali






















GRADUATE TRAINING INSTITUTE
BANGLADESH AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
MYMENSINGH


January, 1986













TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page


SUMMARY ---------------------------- 1


INTRODUCTION ---------------------------- 3
Cropping System Research -------------
The Study Villages ------- 5
Methods of Analysis ------------- 6


FINDINGS OF THE STUDY ------------------ 7
Socio-economic Characteristics of the
Households ------------------------- 7
Women Labour Use ------------------- 9
Time Spent in Agricultural Works ---- 10
Time Spent in Non-Agricultural Works --- 10
Time Spent in Non-productive Works --- 11
Effect of Technology on Women Workload 11
Labour Wages------------------------- 12
Involvement of Women in Decision Making 13
Views of Women on the Modern Varieties
of Paddy -------------------- 13
Sources -of Protein and Vegetables for
Consumption ----------------------- 1
Health and Family Planning ----------- 1l
Influence of the FSR Programme ------ 16
Continuation of the FSR Programme ---- 17
Performance of the Agricultural Extension
Workers ------------------------- 18
Women Extension Workers ------------ 19

REFERENCES ----------------------------- 20


TABLES










THE EFFECTS OF FARMING SYSTEM RESEARCH AND
EXTENSION ON FARM FAMILIES


Abdul Halim
*
M. Hazrat Ali


The major purpose of this study was to draw a comparative
picture of the status, involvement and the extend of participation
in decision-making process of the housewives of the participating
and non-participating households in the Farming Systems Research
(FSR) villages of the Bangladesh Agricultural University (BAU). Two
FSR villages namely Kanhar and Ujan Bailor of Mymensingh district
were selected for this study with a total sample size of 40 house-
holds (20 FSR and 20 non-FSR households).

It has been found that the FSR households were relatively
more advanced in the adoption of modern technologies like modern
varieties of rice, artificial irrigation methods, chemical ferti-
lizers, pesticides and family planning practices. The number of
fruit and wood trees were also remarkably higher in the FSR
households.

The amount of time spent both by women family members as
well as hired labourers in the FSR households for agriculture rela-
ted activities was higher (4.58 hours for family members and 7.58
hours for hired labourers) than those of the non-FSR households
(4.41 hours for family members and 3.50 hours for hired labourers).
The wage rate of the hired women labourers wsee also higher in the
SSR
FSR households thannon- households These indicate that the techno-
logies introduced by FSR programme particularly modern varieties
of rice has opened up scopes for women labour utilization in the
farmyard based activities. With regard to non-agricultural activi-
ties, however, there was no tangible difference in women labour use
between FSR and non-FSR households.


Director and Assistant Professor, respectively, Graduate
Training Institute, Bangladesh Agricultural University,
Mymensingh.











Majority of the respondents viewed that introduction of
modern varieties of rice, fertilizers, pesticides and artificial
irrigation facilities added extra workload for women. This increased
workload resulted mostly from post-harvest operation of paddy.
However, the availability of husking mills in the villages decrea-
sed women's workload.
The finding revealed the fact that the women are given due
importance in thdhousehold decision making process both in FSR and
non-FSR households. In most of the cases, decisions are taken
jointly by the farm operators and their wives. There are, however,
items like appoint)hag women labourers, work distribution amg the
children etc, where housewives take the decisions alone.

Due to the introduction of the modern rice varieties, none of
the farm families under study except one purchased rice for their
family consumption. But for other items like fish, meat, eggs and
vegetables they had also to depend on the local markets in addition
to their own products. However, no remarkable differences were
found with regard to the sources of protein and vegetables for
family consumption between the FSR and non-FSR households.

It has also been found that most of the households (80%) con-
sulted qualified doctors at the time of their requirement although
a few consulted kabiraj, homeopath doctors and village quacks. No
difference was noticed regarding consultation of doctors for health
care of the family members between the FSR and non-FSR households.

It has been reported by both the participating and non-
participating farm operators that FSR programme was beneficial for
them.The types of benefits they derived out of this programme inclu-
modern
ded introduction of/varieties of rice, availability of irrigation
water, and knowledge on the improved cultural practices and the like.

The frequency of visits by the extension workers(Block Supervi-
sors) of the area has not been increased due to introduction of FSR
programme. The respondents showed keen interest to have women exten-
sion workers in order to receive information and suggestions about
vegetables cultivation, poultry raising, animal care and post-harvest
operation of crops.







-3-


Introduction


Women constitute about half (h9%) of the total population
of Bangladesh. It is often said that women in Bangladesh remain
inside the homesteads and as such hardly contribute to the economy
of the family. But a quick review would show that the rural women
of Bangladesh actively participate in productive work in addition
to taking care of their children, preparing and serving food to
their family members. It has been found that rural women signifi-
cantly participate in both agricultural and non-agricultural produc-
tive activities (Mazumder, Rahman and Ali, 1983; Halim and Hossain,
1981). However, a comparative analysis has found out that the house-
wives' average productive hours of work in rice producing houses was
higher than those of the farm operators (Halim and Hussain, 1979).

It is true that rural women traditionally do not go to the
fields where rice is grown. They,however, play key roles in certain
aspects of rice production. These extend from preservation of seeds,
testing germination rates of seed to all post-harvest operations.
While their labour role in threshing is limited, they are almost
wholly responsible for winnowing, drying, soaking, parboiling and
husking (Abduallh, 1983). But in spite of that their economic activity
rates and their contribution to the agricultural labour force are
seriously under estimated. It may, however, still be said that the
rural women labour force forms a vast reservoir of human resource in
Bangladesh and could be utilized more productively for economic
development if properly mobilized.

In the agricultural sector, the main objective of government
policies is to increase production and to attain self-sufficieny in
food. The major crop grown in Bangladesh is rice which covers about
80 percent of the total cropped area, and is the only source of cash
income for many farmers. Yet Bangladesh has not been self-sufficient
in rice for many years. fEcS-tl t imports large quantities of food






-4-


grains. Evidences proof that the amount of food deficit is increa-
sing year after year in a rather alarming fashion

Under these circumstances, Government have planned a deter-
mined effort for efficient utilization of its available resources-
both human and materials. In land scare Bangladesh, there is hardly
any additional land to be brought under crop cultivation and net area
under crop virtually started decreasing quite some time back. As a
result, increased crop production is to be expected from increased
cropping intensity and crop yields. For this purpose, seed-fertilizer-
water technology coupled with distribution of hoeet credit have been
the development strategies of the nation since early 1960's. However,
the overall result of these efforts has not been very encouraging.
cope
In order toywith the population growth, the agricultural productivity
must continue to improve in much greater rate.

Cropping System Research
On realization of this fact attempts were made and initiated
in 1980 by Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council (BARC) to improve
cropping patterns, cropping intensity and component technologies in
different agro-ecological zones through introduction of the Cropping
System Research and Development Programme (CSRDP) in various regions
of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Agricultural University(BAU) also conducted
some experiments under CSRDP in two villages namely Kanhar and Ujan
Bailor under Trishal Upazila. Since July 1985, the activities of
CSRDP have been expanded to Farming System Research and Development
Programme (FSRDP) by keeping provision to add some additional compo-
nents as Livestock, Fisheries, Agro-forestry, Women, Training and
Homestead economics. The approach does not concern only with the
improvement of rice rather it include in its perview the whole-farming
system centering the/armer himself. Although all these components
have not yet been added with the redesignated FSRDP, but an attempt is
being made to include them gradually. It is expected that from July
1986, the women component am~-t be incorporated in this site. Before

In the first year of the SFYP, 1980-81, food import amounted to 10.76 lakh tons;
in 1981-82, it was 12.44 lakh tons; in 1982-83, the amount was 18.44 lakh tons;
in 1983-84 it was 20.58 lakh tons and in 1984-85 a sharp rise to 28.50 lakh tons
(see The Tide, vol. 2 Sep. 1985)







-5-


introduction of this component an attempt is being made in the
present study to identify how far the rice based technologies could
improve the status and role of women in household activities and
their influence in household decision making. The findings of this
study would provide a comparative picture of the status and posi-
tions of women of the participating and non-participating households
in the CSRDP villages.

The Study Villages
The CSRDP of BAU under the financial assistance of
BARC was started at Mymensingh in July 1980. The Kanhar CSR site
constituted eight villages namely Kanhar, Kazir Shimla, Dulalbari,
Ujan Bailor, Sammukh Bailor, Mathbari, and Hindu Palli of Trishal
Upazila under Mymensingh district. The two villages Kanhar and
Ujan Bailor were purposively selected by CSR personnel at the ini-
tial stage.
The two villages are located side by side being divided by
the Dhaka-Mymensingh highway. The villages are about ten miles away
from the Mymensingh district town. There are 367 households in Kanhar
and359 households in Ujan Bailor with an average of 7.5 and 7.89
persons per household, respectively. In both the villages the rate
of literacy of the persons above ten years of age is 45. Average
farm size in both the villages is around one hectar with 16.25 per-
cent and 28.57 percent households in Kanhar and Ujan Bailor, respec-
tively having below 0.2 hectar of cultivable land (Hossain, Sattar
and Ahmed, 1981).
Rice is the basic food crop of the villages under study.
Those who produce surplus rice, they use it as cash crop too. As a
result, rice represents the main trading and survival commodity in
the economy of the villages. However, jute, wheat, potato, mustard,
pulses and vegetables are also grown in.both the villages.







-6-


Methods of Analysis

In this study the household has been used as the major
unit of analysis. This might be treated as a methodological weak-
ness of analysing women's work and their positions in terms of
intra-household relationship. However, this may be ignored in this
case as intra-household relationships would get minimum attention
in this study.
The study is a descriptive one with minimum statistical
analysis. The women's working conditions have been evaluated on
the basis of a number of variables. These include (i) the division
of tasks within the households, (ii) workload associated with these
tasks, (iii) time allocation for performance of these tasks, (iv)
participation in the decision making process by the housewives,
(v) work distribution of female labourers and the like. The house-
holds have been categorized into 'FSR households' and 'non-FSR
households' meaning those participating in the FSR programme and
those outside the FSR programme, respectively.

The villages have been intensively studied since 1981 under
CSRDP by the University researchers. Basic information on all CSR
programme villages of the 'Kanhar site' were collected through a
Bench Mark .Survey in 1980. Relevant up-to-date information were
gathered annual. However, for this study 0h households from above
mentioned two villages were selected randomly for more elaborate
study on women. Twenty were selected from the participating house-
holds and twenty were selected from non-participating households.
Farm activities were monitored with the help of the field workers
of the FSR programme, while for the other households activities a
recall method was used. Data for the household case study were
collected by the female interviewers through face to face interview
and participatory observation during the month of December 1985. The
villages Kanhar and Ujan Bailor were selected for this study because
the CSR project was started first in these villages in 1980 by the
Bangladesh Agricultural University.








-7-


Findings of the Study

Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Households

It has been stated earlier that 40 households were selected
for this study from two villages namely Kanhar and Ujan Bailor
which constitute a part of the FSR programme of the Bangladesh
Agricultural University, Mymensingh.Selection of the villages was
purposive to meet the requirement of this study (to see differences
between the FSR households and non-FSR households). However, the
households were selected randomly from two groups. Half of the
selected households of each of the villages were directly involved
in the FSR programme, while the remaining half were non-participants.
The general characteristics of the households are described below:

(a) Farm size: The farm size has been categorized for this
study into three groups namely, upto 0.80 hectares (small farms),
0.80 hectares to 1.60 hectares (medium farms), and above 1.60
hectares (big farms). In the sample households 65 percent belonged
to small farm group, 10 percent medium farm group and 25 percent
big farm group for the FSR participating households, while the corr-
esponding percentages for the non-participating households were 45,
25 and 30, respectively. This means that while farms above 0.80
hectares of land constituted only 35 percent of the total households
of the participating households, this was more than half (55%) for
the non-participating households (table 1). Average farm size of FSR
and non-FSR households was 1.51 and 1.74 hectares, respectively.

(b)Family members: In general both the participating and non-
participating households could be categorized as large families as
more than 80 percent of them had five or more family members. How-
ever, comparatively the participating households had a lesser number
of large families. While 40 percent of the participating households
had above six members, the families of the same category in the non-
participating households were 65 percent. It has also been found
that more than half (55%) of the total households had dependent
members* ranging from one to four. The average family members in

Dependentmembers here include persons more or less permanently living as family
members other than husband, wife and their unmarried children. Married sons
living with their parents as a member of the extended families have not been
treated as dependent members.









-8-


the FSR and non-FSR households was 6.9 and 7.95, respectively.

It has further been found that the majority of the households
hadtwo male labours (62.5%) and two female labours (80%). However,
comparatively a fewer Jbnor"yeMe of the participating households had
more than two labours both for the male and female than those of the
non-participating households (15% for male and 5% for female for the
participating households and 50% for male and 35% for female for
non-participating households).

(c) Yearly Income and Expenditure: In Bangladesh situation it
is really difficult to get adequate and accurate data on income and
expenditure. This is particularly true for rural family where income
varies month to month and nobody keeps records on them. However, the
information on income and expenditure were collected through direct
interview, questions and cross-question which may be seen in tables
5 and 6.
The information on income indicate that majority of the house-
holds (55%) earned tk. 30,000 or less in a year. But it could be seen
that more than fifty percent (55%) of the households of the FSR pro-
gramme earned more than tk. 30,000 with 10 percent earning more than
tk. 50,000. In case of non-FSR households 20 percent earned more than
tk.50,000. It may be mentioned here that the average annual income of
FSR and non-FSR households was tk. 38,740 and 36,650, respectively.
On the other hand, with regard to yearly expenditure, the difference
between the two categories of households was not remarkable(table 6).
However, the average annual expenditure of FSR and non-FSR houses
was tk. 30,600 and 34,000, respectively.

(d) Value of Households Capital: The information on the total
capital of the households (table 7) indicates that the non-FSR house-
holds were holding more capital than the FSR households. While more
than half (55%) of the households belonging to FSR programme had
capital worth to the tune of tk.15,000 or less and none having capital
more than tk.45000, the corresponding percentage for the non-FSR








-9-


households were 35 and 25, respectively. The average value of
wealth possessed by the FSR and non-FSR households was tk.18,900
and .27,300, respectively.

(e)- Irrigation and Adoption of Modern Varieties:With the
similar facilities for irrigation and the conditions for adoption
of HYVs of rice, it was found that on an average the households
under FSR programme were more advanced in the adoption of these
technologies. It is found tablesb) that none of the non-FSR house-
holds used irrigation for their crop although 90% of them cultivated
MVs of rice under rainfed condition. On the other hand, all the
households under FSR programme adopted irrigation and produced MVs
of rice. On an average, about 0.75 hectares of land per family under
FSR households adopted irrigation although they produced MVs in 1.21
hectares of land. The land under MVs of rice in non-FSR households
under the circumstances was much less (0.59 hectares) in comparison
to FSR households (1.12 hectares).

(f) Fruit and Wood Trees in the Homestead: The FSR households
had more number of trees at home than the non-FSR households. The
average number of fruit trees in FSR and non-FSR households was 34
and 23, respectively. There were also more number of wood trees in the
FSR households than in the non-FSR households (table 9). However, this
study could not identify whether there was any effect of CSRDP on the
increased plantation of trees.at FSR households. Future studieA on
these villages will be able to determine the effect of FSRDP on
homestead plantation.

Women Labour Use
Rural Bangladesh has a very sharply demarcated division of
labour for male and female. Women generally work within or near the
house and men are responsible for working outside the house. Women's
responsibilities can be crudely categorized into maintenance of
households, family care and maintenance kitchen gardening, and
farmyard based activities including crop processing and livestock
care. Agricultural field work and external transaction are the res-
ponsibilities of thenale folk.







-10-


However, for this study women's functions have been broadly
classified into two. They are agricultural and non-agricultural.
Again the agricultural activities have been categorized into crop
related work, work relating to poultry raising and work relating
to animal husbandry. Most of the households under study maintained
one or more women labour permanently or seasonally. So, an attempt
has also been made to show the work load of different types of the
family members as well as hired labourers.

Time Spent in Agricultural Works
A comparative analysis was made to find out the involvement
of female members in agricultural works between the FSR and non-FSR
villages. Table 10 demonstrates the information in this respect. It
is clearly found that in FSR villages amount of time spent by house-
hold female members in agricultural works specially in crop related
activities was higher (4.58 hours) than those of non-FSR villages
(4.41 hours). The amount of time spent by hired labourers in FSR
villages in crop related activities was also 7.58 hours per day
compared to 3.50 hours in non-FSR villages. The average hours spent
by female labourers per day in FSR villages was 5.08 hours compared
to 4.36 hours in non-FSR villages in the field of crop related acti-
vities. This indicates that the technologies delivered through FSR
programmes specially modern varieties of rice has increased the
opportunity of female labour utilization in household activities.
This has also resulted the increased number of labour use in post-
harvest activities of rice as drying, husking etc. It is to be noted
that in the FSR villages only rice technologies were diffused. The
components of livestock and fisheries had not been added in this
site before this survey was undertaken. So, no significant difference
as regards female labour utilization was observed in other sectors
between FSR and non-FSR villages.

Time Spent in Non-agricultural Works
There was no difference in the use of time by the female mem-
bers between FSR and non-FSR villages. Almost equal amount of time
was spent by the female labourers in different non-farm activities







-11-


in both types of households except in two items namely, fuel
collection and cleanliness. The average time spent between FSR
and non-FSR households for fuel collection was 1.03 hours and 0.66
hours, respectively. Similarly the average time spent by the/emale
members in FSR and non-FSR house. for cleanliness was 1.65 hours and
1.05 hours, respectively (table 11). This differences in time use
were justified as.increased production of rice requires more time
to collect fuel for burning rice and at the same time takes more
time of the female labourers to remove dirts from home which usually
deposits due to increased performance of post-harvest activities
of rice crop.
The above findings demonstrates that the improved technologies
of rice has definitely increased the women labour use within the
households. Further, the FSR programme is useful not only for research
but also for diffusion of innovations among the farm families.

Time Spent in Non-productive Works

There is no remarkable difference in the use of time for
personal and recreational works between FSR and non-FSR households
except in listening to radio. The female members of non-FSR households
spent more time (4 hours) than the FSR households (2.50 hours) in
listening to radio programme (table 12). This might be due to the
reason that members of the FSR households are more busy with work
than those of non-FSR households. The increased workload was the
effect of adoption of modern technologies in rice production.

Effect of Technology on Women Workload
The effects of technology on the production behaviour are
known and well established. The new rice technologies have a subs-
tantial impact on women's workload and employment. Majority of the
respondents viewed that MVs of rice have had added additional work-
load for women. Since women of the sample households hardly work
outside their homesteads, this increased workload relates mostly
to post-harvest operation of paddy. Use of fetilizers and pesticides
have similarly increased the women workload probably by increasing
perhectare Iroduction. Introduction of artificial irrigation also






-12-


added workload as it has major contribution to increased production.
Availability of husking mills, on the other hand, for the obvious
reason has decreased women workload (table 13) as manual husking is
the most labour intensive operation in the whole post-harvest pro-
cessing of rice.

Labour Wages
During the last three decades in Bangladesh, an increasing
number of households have become landless. Associated with this,
there is a trend of an increasing number of female participation in
the productive and wage earning activities. Due to growing rural
impoverishment, an increasing number of families are becoming depen-
dent on female wage labour for family income. Luckily, Rural Works
for
Programme and Food/Works Programme have expanded opportunities for
women participation in mud works for construction of roads and exca-
vation of canals. In addition to widows, married and middle-aged
women are also now found working along with their male counter parts
in the road side.
Traditionally the women workers in the household are not paid
in cash but in kind. There will be many cases where they are not paid
rather are given two meals in a day and sometimes with it clothes in
some special occasions. However, in the households under study most
of the women labourers were paid in kind. But for the purpose of ana-
lysis those were converted into taka as per market price. It has been
found that about 18 percent of the households (those who hired women
labourers) did not pay anything to the women labourers except food
and less than fifty percent (44.1%) received tk. 10.00 or less per
day for their work. The wage rates for the rest varied from tk. 11.00
to 5.00 per day (table 14). It may be noted that 15 percent of the
total households under study did not use any hired women labourers.
The average Wage rate in FSR and non-FSR houses was tk. 9.0 and 8.0,
respectively indicating that FSR technologies have also contribution
in increasing wage rate of the women labourers.







-13-


Involvement of Women in Decision Making

Women's role in decision making regarding rice production and
other household work is difficult to find out clearly by formal
interviews. However, when asked who makes the decisions about rice
production such as the selection of new seeds, choice of pesticide,
hiring of labours, etc. the usual answer was that their husbands
decide. Even in cases where the wives contribute substantially to
decision making with respect to agriculture related work, to the
outsiders it will always appear that thehusbands have taken the
decisions. However, after several cross-questions it has been found
out that in many cases, the wives decide themselves, sometimes together
with their husbands and sometimes with their sons.
From table 15 it is noticed that in some activities such as
fertilizer buying, crop raising activities, borrowing money and vice
versa, children's education, medicare and house repairing decisions
are taken jointly in most of the non-FSR households than in FSR house-
holds. This indicates that farmers of non-FSR households depend on
their wives in takingfnajor decisions of the family. In some other acti-
vities such as hiring of women labour, work distribution of children,
livestock raising and social functions the joint decision are more
prevalent in FSR households than in non-FSR households.

The above findings indicate that on an average the female members
are not less important and honoured in taking decisionsof the house-
hold activities both in FSR and non-FSR households. There is no indi-
cation of sex differntiation in decision making due to increased use
of agricultural technologies in the villages.

Views of Women on the Modern Varieties of Paddy
In assessing the quality of the MVs of paddy, very little atten-
tion has so far been laid on the opinions of the housewives. Since
they are responsible for most of the post-harvest operations, their
opinions should carry weight in determining the quality of the MVs
of paddy. Table 16 shows that to the majority of the respondents
yield per bigha of MVs of paddy was very high in comparison with
the local varieties. With regard to its taste also majority viewed
that it was very tasty. It should be noted that pajam, an improved







-1 -


local variety which is predominantly cultivated in this area has
been considered as MVs. Because of this reason, 65 percent of the
respondents opined that the MVs were finer rice than those of the
local varieties Although the paddy-rice ratio of the MVs was treated
higher by most of the respondents, both the quantity of straw and
quality of husk were regarded lower and poor, respectively in compari-
son with the local varieties.

Sources of Protein and Vegetables for Consumption

Due to the higher production of rice for the adoption of MVs of
rice, none of the households under study except one purchased rice
for their family consumption. However, for other food items like fish,
meat, eggs, and vegetables most of the families had to rely on market.
As the table 17 shows, majority of the households (95%) had to pur-
chase fish and meat from the market. Of course, three-fourth of the
households consumed fish from their own sources and one-third consumed
meat of their own product. Almost cent percent of the households
consumed eggs of their own poultry birds although more than fifty
percent of the households had also to purchase it from outside for
consumption. Similarly, all the households under study produced
vegetables for their own consumption but in spite of that more than
three-fourth of the households had to purchase vegetables from the
market for consumption. No difference was found between FSR and non-
FSR houses in respect of sources of protein and vegetable consumption.

Health and Family Planning

(a) Medical treatment
The rural people specially the women suffer from ill health due
to a number of reasons.These are lack of adequate knowledge about
health care, want of money, scarcity of qualified medical doctors and
proper medicines. Qualified doctors had been virtually unthinkable in
rural areas before introduction of the Upazila system. Only the well-
to-do villagers could consult such doctors stationed at the urban
centre. Although the situation still remains almost unchanged, the
able villagers may take advise of the qualified doctor at the Upazila
centre.







-15-


It has been found that 80 percent of the sample households
consulted qualified doctors at the time of their requirement. Besides,
15 percent consulted kabiraj, 27.5 percent Homeopath doctors and 40
percent went to village quacks. It may be mentioned here that the rural
people consult qualified doctors mostly at the time when they do not
find any other alternatives to save life. This has been reflected in
the present study too as even those who consulted qualified doctors
most of them also consulted kabiraj Homeopath doctors and village
quacks (table 18). No difference was found between FSR and non-FSR
households in this respect.

(b) Age at marriage
Traditionally, rural girls get married at their early age.
This is regarded as one of the primary reasons for their suffering
from various diseases generally caused by frequent child deliveries
at immatured age. It would be seen from table 19 that 80 percent of
the respondents said that the girls in their localities are married
before 16 years of age. The rest 20 percent opined that the girls get
married within 16 to 18 years of age. This means that in the study
area the girls are usually married within 18 years of age. On the
other hand,.it seems that the boys start marrying at the age of 16.
However, majority of the respondents (72.5%) viewed that the boys
marry between 19 to 24 years of age. No difference was noticeable
between FSR and non-FSR households in this regard.

(c) Use of contraceptives

The national family planning programme which was started in
1960's, presently offers seven different fertility control methods to
its clients for mass use. These are (i) oral contraceptives, (ii)
intra-uterine devices, (iii) condoms, (iv) spermicidal foam, (v) mens-
trual regulation, (vi) tube ligation and (vii) vasectomy. Steriliza-
tion, M.R.and IUD insertion are done in clinics or hospitals by the
physicians and paramedical workers while oral contraceptives, condoms
and spermicidal foam are distributed primarily by the family planning
workers directly to the users. However, recently, these are also commer-
cially distributed through market channel. In addition, traditional
and1folk contraceptive methods are also in vogue. They include absti-






-16-


nence, azal, reliance on prolonged lactation, and various herbal
preparations meant for temporary or permanent starility or abortion.
These methods are generally available either through local homeopathic
and kabirajic doctors or through commonly held cultural practices.

It has been found that only about 18 percent of the respon-
dents ever used any contraceptive methods (table 20). Among them 15
percent used oral pills and one took ligation. By the time of investi-
gation one already discontinued practicing contraception. On an average
the length of using contraceptive was around three years. It may be
noted that the contraceptive users were more than double in the FSR
households than those of non-FSR households.

It has been stated earlier that the national family planning
programme has its field workers upto grass-root level. But interest-
ingly enough, none of the currently users received contraceptives
delivered from these workers. Except one, all of them purchased con-
traceptives from market. It may be pointed out that the national
programme supplies contraceptives, particularly condoms and oral
pills free of cost. In spite of that the users purchased those from
market.

It has been found that majority (82.5%)of the respondents
did not use any contraceptives. Most of the respondents mentioned
more than one reasons for that. The most frequently mentioned reasons
for not adopting contraceptives were: against religion (35%) followed
by dislikingby the husbands (27.5%). More than one-fifth (22.5%) of the
respondent did not require birth prevention due to their old ages
and small family size. However, 15 percent of the respondents them-
selves did not like any contraceptiions (table 25).



Influence of the FSR Programme
It has been mentioned that the study villages were a part of
the FSR programme of BAU which was luanched during 1980-81. Information
were also gathered from farm operators about the usefulness of this
programme. Majority (6`7.5%) of the respondents viewed that the FSR







-17-


programme was beneficial for them while to some (32.5%) the programme
was not beneficial. It is interesting to note that the proportions of
the participating and the non-participating households in the FSR prog-
ramme in respect of the benefits derived and not derived was almost
identical (table 26).

The respondents who replied in favour of benefits derived
from the FSR programme were further asked to state the types of bene-
fits they received Most of the respondents mentioned more than one
benefits. The most frequent answer (52.5%) was the introduction of the
MVs of rice. Before introduction of CSR programme, cultivation of the
MVs of rice was very much limited by the availability of irrigation
water. Since CSR programme was started the farmers were benefitted
in matters of increasing their knowledge about disease control (as
mentioned by 35% of the respondents), use of balanced fertilizers
(mentioned by another 32.5%), and use of irrigation water (mentioned
bu 37.5%). These benefits, however, were not limited only to the
participating households as others also learnt these from the parti-
cipating farmers. This is evident from the responds of the non-parti-
cipating households (table 27).

Continuation of the FSR Programme

Opinion were sought from farm operator as to whether the pre-
sently designed FSR programme should be continued in these villages.
Most of the respondents (70 percent) responded affirmatively while
the rest (30 percent) answered negatively (table 28), although it is
not clear as to why some respondents wanted discontinuation of the
FSR programme in their villages. Those who wanted continuation of this
programme showed a variety of reasons. The most frequently mentioned
reasons were easy availability of agricultural inputs such as irriga-
tion water, fertilizers, pesticides and loan from banks. The availa-
bility of advice from the agricultural experts was also mentioned by
22.5 percent respondents (table 29).







-18-


Performance of the Agricultural Extension Workers (AEW)

Extension services relating to agriculture are the responsibi-
lity of the Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE). The grass-
root level functionaries of DAE are known as Block Supervisors(BS)
who carry out their responsibilities with the help of non-paid
contact farmers. A BS is responsible for extension work of a Block
which consists of nearly one hundred farm households. In addition
to visiting the contact farmers, he is also supposed to come across
with the general farmers occasionally. The respondents were asked
as to whether they know about the visits of the BS. Majority of the
respondents (60 percent) answered affirmatively although some (40
percent) did not know about their visits. On a further enquiry about
the frequency of their visits, it came to light that to the majority
the BS made visits once in three months. Of course, some mentioned
about their fortnightly and monthly visits too (table 31).

It was thought that due to the very existence of theFSR pro-
gramme in the locality there might be some variation in the frequency
of visits of the BS. Hence, the respondents were asked to give their
sincere views as to whether or not thelvisits of the BS were increased
after introduction of FSR Programme. To the majority (75 percent),
there were no variation in the frequency of visits while the rest
viewed that it was increased (table 32). With regard to the subject
matters discussed by the BS, it seems that they mostly discussed
about loan and agriculture related things. Of course a few (37%)
did not know at all what the BSs talked about (tables 33 and 34).

The respondents were asked to give their opinions on the coopera-
tive and joint endeavour of the BSs and the workers of theFSR pro-
grammes. Although majority (60%) of the respondents welcomed this
idea but a few apprehended misunderstanding among the workers. Those
who favoured the idea expected better coordination regarding delivery

of agricultural inputs and dissemination of more useful and effective
information on agriculture related activities (table 35,36 and 37)
to the farmers.







-19-


Women Extension Workers

Because of the long-term influence of the traditional purdha
system, the male extension workers can not approach to the women-
folk. Hence, it was asked as to whether the placement of women
Block Supervisors (BS) would be helpful for them. An overwhelming
majority (92.5%) responded in favour and the rest did not answer
(table 38). A further enquiry revealed that the housewives preferred
to have women BS to obtain information and suggestions about vege-
tables production, poultry raising, animal care and post-harvest
operations of crops (table 39).












REFERENCES


Abdullah, Tahrunnesa
1983 "Women in Rice Farming Systems in Bangladesh and
how Technology Programmes can Reach them". In IRRI,
Women in Rice Farming, International Rice Research
Institute, Philippines, pp; 209-220.


Halim, Abdul and Musharref Hussain
1979 Time Allocation and Its Effects on Rice Production
and Farm Income in Three Villages of Mymensingh:
Mymensingh, Graduate Training Institute.


Halim, Abdul and Akmal Hossain
1981 Women Time Allocation ind Adoption of Family Planning
Practices in Farm Family. Mymensingh; Graduate Train-
ing Institute.


Hossain/ Sarder/ Muhammad Altaf, Mufarah-us-Sattar and Jalal
Uddin Ahmed
1981 Cropping Systems Research and Development Programme,
Mymensingh, Graduate Training Institute.


Mazumder# Sabita, Md. Mustafizur Rahman and M. Hazrat Ali
1983 Women Participation in Agricultural and Non-Agricultural
Activities in Bangladesh Villages, Mymensingh, Graduate
Training Institute.





-21-


Table 1: Farm size of tle study households


Farm size Category of Households
(in hectare) FSR households Non-FSR Households
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Upto 0.80 13 65 9 45

0.80 to l1.60 2 10 5 25
Above 1.60 .- 5 25 6 30
Total 20 100 20 100


Table 2: Number of family members in the family


Number of
family members


Category of Households
FSR Households Non-FSR Households Total
Frequency PercentageFrequency Percentage Frequ- Percen-
pnrv taOe


Upto 2 0 0 1 5 1 2.5
3 4 20 2 10 6 15
5- 6 8 o0 U 20 12 30
Above 6 8 40 13 65 21 52.5
Total 20 100 20 100 o0 100


Table 3: Number of dependent members in the family

Number of Dependent Category of Households
members FSR Households Non-FSR Households Total

Upto 2 7 5 12
3 h 5 5 10
Total 12 10 22

Table U: Number of male and female labours in the family

Number of Category of Households
Family Labours FSR Households Non-FSR Households
Male Female Male Female
Upto 2 15 19 10 13
3 4 3 1 8 7
5 and above 2 0 2 0


20 20


Total 20








-22-


Table 5: Yearly income of the family

Yearly income Category of Households
( in taka) FSR Households Non-FSR Households
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Upto tk. 10,000 3 15 1 5
tk. 10,001 to 30,000 6 30 10 50
tk. 30,001 to 50,000 6 30 5 25
Above tk. 50,000 5 25 4 20
Total 20 100 20 100

Table 6: Yearly expenditure of the family

Yearly expenditure tCategory of Households-
FSR Households Non-FSR Households
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Upto tk. 10,000 3 15 1 5
tk. 10,001 to 30,000 8 40 11 55
tk.30,001-50,000 7 35 5 25
Above tk. 50,000 2 10 3 15
Total 20 100 20 100

Table 7: Approximate total wealth of the family

Total wealth Category of Households
(in taka) FSR Households Non-FSR Households
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Opto tk. 15,000 11 55 7 35
tk. 15,001 to 30,000 6 30 5 25
tk. 30,001- 45,000 3 15 3 15
tk.--5,o000 60,000 0 0 2 10
Above tk. 60,000 0 0 3 15
Total 20 100 20 100

Table 8: Area under irrigation and modern varieties

Category of Category of Households
Households Land under Irrigation Land under MV
(Hectare) ( Hectare)
FSR Households 0.75 1.12
Non-FSR Households 0 0.59







-23-


Table 9: Number of trees ; FSR andnon-FSR houses

Types of tress Category of Households
FSR Households Non-FSR Households
Fruit trees 34 23
Wood trees 1 2


Table 10: Hours spent by female members in agricultural work

Types of work FSR Households Non-FSR Households
Own Hired Av. Own Hired Av.

Crop raising and
related practices 4.58 7.58 5.08 4.41 3.50 4.36
Rice husking, drying
etc. 7.60 5.38 7.1 4.35 3.33 4.16
Poultry keeping 0.48 0.75 0.50 0.49 0o49
Animal raising 0.57 .0.57 0.11 0.11




Table 11: Time spent by female members in non-agricultural
activities

Types of work FSR Households Non-FSR Households
Own Hired Av. Own Hired Av.


Cooking, serving
food etc.
Cleaning houses,
clothes, etc.
Fuel collection
Child care
Sewing
Others


2.08

1.71

1.14
1.75
1.09
0.35


2.52 2.12 3.01

1.65 1.71 1.04


0.65 1.03
0.3 1.68
- 1.09
0.35 0.61


0.66
1.66
1.00


2.78

1.15


2.15

1.05

0.66
1.66
1.00
0.61


- -- -







- -24-


Table 12: Time spent for personal and recreational work

Nature of work Category of Households
FSR Households Non-FSR Households
Total hours spent Total hours spent

Sleeping 7.55 7.00
Gossiping 1.41 1.75
g '~.4 radio t-r-. 2.50 4.00
Religious work 1.85 1.91
Visiting neighbours 0.79 1.09


Table 13: Effect of technology on work load

Name of technology Category of Households
FSR Households Non-FSR Households
Increased Decreased Increased Decreased
Modern varieties of rice 20 0 14 1
Husking Mills 0 17 1 15
Ftrtilizers and 10 8 12 5
n~ e~ticides
Irrigation 15 5 13 5


Table 14: Wages of female labour per day

Wages (in take) Category of Households
FSR Households Non-FSR Household Total Percen-
tage
Only food 3 3 6 17.64
Upto 'tk. 10.00 9 6 15 44.11
Tk. 11.00-15.00 6 7 13 38.25

Total 18 16 34 100.00







-25-


Table 15: Participation of wife in household decision making

Items of decisions FSR Households /o) Non-FSR Households//
Wife Both Operator IWife Both *Operator'

Fertilizer buying 15 15 70 -55 45
Crop raising activities
other than fertilizer 5 50 45 75 25
Hiring of labour 20 50 30 15 45 40
Work distribution of
children at home 55 40 5 60 35 5
Selling and buying 55 45 25 50 25
Livestock raising 50 35 15 75 20 5
Loan taking and loan
giving 5 40 55 15 65 20
Children's education 20 o0 o4 15 50 35
Medicare 25 35 40 5 75 20
House construction and
furniture making 35 55 10 30 65 5
Social functions 30 40 30 10 10 80


Table 16: Views on the characteristics of MVs of paddy in
comparison with the local varieties

Element of Category of Households
assessment Better As per Poor no reply Better As per Poor Noreply
Yield(per bigha) 16 3 0 1 17 1 0 2
Taste 12 8 0 0 11 9 0 0
Paddy/rice ratio 16 3 1 17 1 1 1
Quality of straw 0 3 14 3 0 4 12 4
Quality of husk 0 5 13 2 0 3 14 3
Fineness 14 5 1 0 16 4 0 0


Table 17: Sources of consumption items

Edible items Category of Households
FSR Households on-FSR Households
Own products Purchased Own products Purchased
Fish 14 19 15 19
Meat 8 20 6 18
Egg 20 11 19 11
Vegetables 2o 15 20 16







-26-


Table 18: Treatments for the diseased family members

Type of persons Category of Households
consulted FSR Households I Non-FSR Householdsl Totall Percentage

Kabiraj 3 3 6 15.00
Homeopath Doctor 3 8 11 27.00
Quack 8 8 16 40.00
Medical Doctor 16 17 32 80.00


Table 19:Views on the age at marriage

Age at marriage Category of Households
FSR Househods Non-FSR Households
Son Daughter Son Daughter

Before 16 years 0 15 0 17
16-18 years 2 5 1 3
19-20 years 5 0 10 0"
21-22 years 6 0 4 0
23-24 years 2 0 2 0
25 and above 3 0 3

Total 18 20 20 20


Table 20: Use of Cbntraceptives

Status of contraceptivei Category of Households
use FSR HouseholdsjNon-FSR Households! Total epcenta

Yes 5 2 7 17.5
No 15 18 33 82.5

Total 20 20 40 100.00


Table 21: Types of contraceptive used

Types of contra- Category of Households
ceptive used FSR Households Non-FSR Hous-ehoTl.ds~" -
Frequency Length of Frequency Length of use-
use(in yr.)_ (in yr.)
Oral pill 4 3.06 2 3.00
Ligation 1 4.00 0 0







-27-


Table 22: Current use of contraceptives


Present status of Category of Households
contraceptive use FSR Households I Non-FSR Households

Presently using 5 1
Not presently using 15 19
Total 20 20

Table 23: Types of contraceptives presently using

Types of contracep- Category of Households
tives using FSR Households I Non-FSR Households
Frequency Length of Frequency Length of
use (Av.) fuse (Av.)
Oral pill h 3.25 yrs. 1 3 yrs.
Ligation 1 4.00 0 0


Table 24: Sources of contraceptives

Sources Category of Households
FSR Households Non-FSR Households
Clinic/Hospital 1
Market 4 1
Total 5 1

Table. 25: Reasons for not using contraceptives

Reasons Category of Households
FSR Households Non-FSR Households Total Percentage

Do not like 2 4 6 15.0
No knowledge 2 1 3 7.5
No need 2 7 9 22.5
Against religion 9 5 14 35.0
Dislike by husband 5 6 11 27.0
Dislike by monther-
in laws 2 1 3 7.5
Others 1 1 2 5.0







-28-


Table 26: Whether any benefits derived from FSR programme


Nature of Category of Households
response IFSR Households INon-FSR Households Total Percentage
Yes 14 13 27 67.5
No 6 7 13 32.5
Total 20 20 40 100.00

Table 27: Type of benefits derived from FSR programme

Type of benefits Category of Households
derived FSR Households INon-FSR Households Total Percentage
JIV of paddy 12 9 21 52.5
Timely plantation
and cultural operation 8 5 13 32.5
Irrigation facilities 9 6 15 73.5
Knowledge about plant
diseases and control 8 6 14 35.0
Use of balanced
fertilizers 7 6 13 32.5



Table 28: Whether FSR programme should continue for longer period

Nature of ICategory of Households
responseI PSR Households INon-FSR Households iTotaljPercentage
Yes 15 13 28 70.0
No 5 7 12 30.0
Total 20 20 40 100.00

Table 29:Reasons for continuation of FSR programme

Reasons Category of Households
IFSR Households Non-FSR Households ITotal Percentage
Agricultural inputs
are delivered 11 0 11 27.5

Improved agricultural
practices are taught 6 8 14 35.0
Modern varieties of
rice are demonstrated 6 3 9 22.5
Good advice are given 7 7 17.5
Increases crop yield 3 6 9 22.5








-29-


Table 30: Visit of the block supervisors

Nature of Category of Households
response 1FS Households Non-FSR HouseholdslTotal Percentage
Yes 11 13 24 60.0
No 9 7 16 40.0
Total 20 20 40 100.00

Table 31: Frequency of visit of the block supervisors

Intervals of visit Category of Households
FSR Households Non-FSR Households Total Percentage

Once in a fortnight 1 3 4 10.0
Once in a month 3 2 5 12.5
Once in three months 3 8 11 27.5
Once in a year 1 0 1 2.5
Total 8 13 21^ 52.5

The rest did not reply

Table 32: Whether frequency of visits increased

Nature Category of Households
!FSR Households Non-FSR HouseholdslTotal Percentage
Yes 5 5 10 25.0
No 15 15 30 75.0
Total 20 20 40 100.00

Table 33: Knowledge on the subject matter discussed by
block supervisors

Nature of i Category of Households
response FSR Households INon-FSR Households [Total Percentage
Know 8 17 25 62.5
Do not know 12 3 15 37.5

Total 20 20 40 100.00

Table 34: Topics of discussion by the block supervisors

Topics of discussion Category of Households
FSR Households Non-FSR Households Total Percentage

Loan 5 14 19 76.0
Agril. related work 3 3 6 24.0
Total 8 17 25 100.00








-30-


Table 35: Whether combined effort of BS and FSR programme
works preferred

Nature of b Category of Households
response FSR Households Non-FSR Households !Total Percentage
Yes 12 12 24 60.0
No 8 8 16 ho.o
Total 20 20 40 100.00

Table 36: Reasons for better joint work

Reasons Category of Household
FSR Households Non-FSR Households Total I Percentage
Better crop 7 12 19 47.5
Better knowledge
tir agriculture 5 2 7 17.5
Cultural prac-
tices of AVs paddy 2 1 3 7.5


Table 37:Reasons for which joint work of the BS and
FSR worker disliked

Reasons Category of Households
FSR Households Non-FSR Households
Possibilities of
developing mis-
understanding 1 6
between them
BS work not
satisfactory 1 0


Table 38: Preference of women block supervisors
--- -- --- i- ----------------------_________|


Nature of


I Category of Households


response FSR Households INon-FSR Households [TotallPercentage
Yes 17 20 37 92.5
No 3 0 0 7.5
Total 20 20 20 100.00






-31-



Table 39: Types of advice requires by the female respondents

Advice requires Category of Households
FSR Households [Non-FSR Households Total Percentage

Advice on vege-
tables growing 13 6 19 47.5
Advice on poultry
raising and animal
care 4 12 18 45.0
Advice on post-
harvest operations 0 2 2 5.0




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs