Neorganic Rice: Same Yield, Higher Price, Up to 3x Profit

0:00 Hello. In English? I'm supposed to do it in English, but... Since there's an explanation, I'll say this in Korean. Briefly. Yes, briefly. I'm Lee Chang-pyo, and I work at World Vision. If in the earlier session you heard about the impact of Natural Science Farming, whether it actually works, and so on, I actually took this method and applied it at World Vision's project sites, and...

안녕하세요. 영어로요? 영어로 해야 되는데... 설명이 있으니까 한글로 하겠습니다. 짧게. 네, 짧게. 월드비전에서 일을 하고 있는 이창표입니다. 전 섹션에서는 자연과학농업에 대한 임팩트나, 실제로 이것이 효과가 있냐, 이런 것들을 들으셨다면 저는 실제로 이 메소드를 가지고 저희 월드비전에서 하는 사업장에 적용을 한...

0:51 Oh, Professor, me? Let me begin. In this presentation I just want to introduce the impact analysis of the Neorganic farming on rice, vegetable, chicken, and pig production in developing countries. In developing countries, there are Vietnam, Sri Lanka and Ethiopia. In this case, I call it Neorganic because when I call, when I introduce natural farming, people, especially the government staff, they will be confused. Because there are many issues about natural farming. So what is natural farming? They ask me. So some people say there is no application

아, 교수님, 저요? 시작하겠습니다.

1:40 of the microorganisms. So when I apply microorganisms, it's not natural farming. They are told me. So, I'm a little bit confused. So, I just analyzed all the methodologies, some of the significant farming methodologies. Right now, we compare the three methodologies. Here is conventional, organic and conservation. Conservation is recommended by the FAO, and now this. And there are the factors of the whole methodology. But I emphasize, there are some weak points.

2:26 Because conventionally, as you may know, they are not sustainable. Organic is a little bit sustainable, but it's not actually the productivity is not more than the conventional way. And conservation, they still use the chemicals or the fertilizers, chemical fertilizers. But I just choose the mix of all the methodologies. So when I introduced the natural farming actually, I emphasized four principles. One is the no or minimum tilling. And other things, mulching with natural materials. Because they make up the microorganisms' house under the soil.

3:16 But most of the, in Korea, even in Korea we have the micro-organisms farming. So the scientists, they developed some specific microorganisms and they apply them under the contaminated soil. But in the natural farming, when I introduced the natural farming, I emphasized two things. Because the native microbiome composition is important, but to accelerate the impact, to improve quickly the income of our customers. But first of all, for the sustainable approach, no and minimum till and mulching should be emphasized in

4:03 the farming methodology. It's a little bit different from the original natural farming. So I call it, why is it a little bit different? I call it the Neorganic farming, so like this. To avoid the confusion between the natural farmers and the new farmers. That's the application of this farming methodology. Anyway, but this methodology from the natural farming I did modify it. My emphasis is a little bit, my angle is a little bit different from the original one. So anyway, the principle of Neorganic farming method. So in the principle of Neorganic farming, I just emphasized these sections,

4:53 microbiome and decomposition, and then you can maintain the nutrients and the number of the microorganisms in the soil. But most of the farmers, they practically have to plow the land. So when you plow the land, it means you destroy the house of the microorganisms on the ground. So to enhance this step of the mechanism, I emphasize no plowing the land, and cover the land with mulching. And on the four principles, I trained, and then We applied this methodology in Vietnam, Sri Lanka, and Ethiopia.

5:40 This is the location. And practically, 70 households, 600 households, 490 households in different farmer groups and villages. The application sectors are vegetables, rice, chicken and pork, vegetables and rice, and seed potato. This is the project's period. All of the funds are from KOICA, and as an innovative farming methodology. But in this project, knowledge transfer with ToT training on the farming for government staff, leading farmers every year, I only visit them one time for one week per year.

6:27 Not anymore. I'm not living with them, the local people, local farmers. I just provide three days of ToT training, and I just supervise the trainers; the trainees train other farmers for three days. So only I visit one time per year for one week. And this is the result in Sri Lanka, the vegetable production. This is ladies' finger, brinjal, pumpkin, green chili, beans, drumstick, bitter gourd, green leaf. Before and after. This is the beneficiary. Before applying, after applying, the new farming. The differences, beneficiary, non-beneficiary differences.

7:15 But there is no statistical differences in the beneficiary and non-beneficiary. Because there are other sectors to affect the differences. Because all the beneficiary farmers have different capacity to do the farming. And they are not only different, not only the different farming methodology, but also many different environments between the beneficiary and non-beneficiary. So anyway, there is no statistical differences. But in the same farmers, before and after, the comparison, the differences are significant. And now, this is the statistics of the government in Sri Lanka.

8:05 This is natural, this is conventional, the ton per acre. But this, the productivity, there are big differences between the natural and the conventional. This is not my data. I'm not collecting this data. It's collected from the local government, the statistical department. So actually, there's a big difference. There are no sampling methodologies. There are no differences between beneficiary and non-beneficiary. But in the area's statistical data, there are very big differences.

8:56 The input cost, this is the input cost of vegetable production. In Vaharai, the input cost. Beneficiary, before and after. And the differences, also this is significantly different. And also, beneficiary and non-beneficiary, between the two groups, there are big differences. This is not only the quantitative data, there is also qualitative data. We focus on this question, key informants, with the agronomist or some leading farmers. And this is the message through the qualitative data analysis. It's the same as other presenters.

9:48 And also this is the accessibility of natural products in that area, the project area. In March 2013, there were around 20%. Last year, there were almost 99%. So they improved the accessibility of natural products. products. And this is the meal frequency, especially, also improved through this project. At baseline it is 74 percent, but this year it is 98.8 percent for the child and 95.9 percent for the adult. So also this is from the beneficiary farmers, the qualitative data.

10:42 This is the diet diversity, because through this, only the natural farming, they We get more diverse various diets in their home garden. So in the baseline, they are 42.3%, and they improved like this, the child and the adult. Taste better, smell better, and consumers prefer natural farming products. This is the diet diversity comparison. So they also improved, beneficiary, non-beneficiary. In child, they are more improved: 67%, and non-beneficiary, 52%.

11:31 This is Vietnam case, the rice. We analyzed all the sectors. This is the seed, the sowing date, the harvesting date, the life cycle, also leaf worm. They all, this analysis is surveyed by the local government in Vietnam, not by the World Vision team. So they provide like this data, and five different villages, but I just introduced the three different villages. The natural and conventional, natural conventional, natural conventional. The variety is the same, but different variety they used.

12:18 And this is the disease. This is the blight, but this is the blast. There's no infection, no infection. But some village, there is no infection, both the methodologies. But anyway, the CF are more infected by the disease and insect. And this is the input cost, the analysis, and then purchase the seed, and the chemical fertilizer, like this. Also they calculated the caring labor cost or the land preparation labor cost. And also bio-products, IMO, something like that, to prepare the indigenous microorganisms.

13:06 And in this case also, the total input cost is like this. They are compared. Most of the Most of the villages, the natural product input cost is lower than the conventional rate. And income, like this. Because this income is calculated here, the yield is almost the same. But the selling price is a little bit different. But this is, naturally, they are a little bit increased, the selling price. But they are not intentionally selling this natural product with this high price. So actually the consumers, they are the buyers of this product with this price.

13:57 So anyway, this is the, in Vietnam they are selling the natural product in this, So total income, net profit. I think net profit is a little bit different. Anyway, the net profit in natural farming is three times higher than the conventional farming. In this case, the vegetables. The vegetables, they applied only one time, and a little bit different: the lettuce, the broccoli, the harvest. Because their harvest, their life cycle is longer than the CF. And then also the lettuce, they are longer than the CF. Also, they are a little bit longer than the CF.

14:49 But their harvest yield... but the input cost is more than the CF because because because this is the land preparation the soil the labor cost they are the natural farming they are more higher than the conventional farming so this can be the higher input cost in the natural farm, like this, compared to the CF. But the income is higher than... the selling price is the same because they are

15:41 There is no... they only practiced the natural farming one time, one season. So there is no any difference in price in the market. Anyway, they produce, they sell the natural products with the same price as CF, and their income is like this. In this case, income is lower: the lettuce and the broccoli, lower than the CF. But the herbs, they are more, higher than the CF, because their number of round harvests is more than the CF. So the CF, five times they are finished, but the natural product, they harvest seven rounds.

16:27 So their profit is like this. So the farmers, they get more profit, but the lettuce, broccoli, when they sell it at the same price, their net profit is lower; the natural product's income is lower than the CF. In this case, chicken. So the input cost is like this. Most of the input is a little bit higher than the CF, due to the labor cost, the working labor. So most of the farmers, they calculate their labor cost to prepare the organic and bio

17:13 products or the mixed food and there are some like these differences and this is cause of the higher input cost in the natural farming. And the income, but the income is different because the natural selling prices are a little bit higher than in the market natural product in the market, and their harvest is the same. So when they sell the chicken, they get like this income. But there are other indicators, meat quality, labor, and the raising time, the disease, compared to both farming methods. They are good taste, delicious, safer, and the longer,

17:56 their raising time is longer because they didn't provide the protein source in the mixed food. and also less disease, higher resistance. So, anyway they like to do natural farming because without any resources they can raise the chicken. And I think that's more the benefit. This is pig. Pig has a little bit of difference. Most of the work is the same. But this is because of labor work. They are to prepare the mixed food or the bio organic products.

18:47 So income is like this because their weight is lower than, actually the final product weight is lower than the CF. So the income is a little bit lower than the CF. But in this case, they also didn't use the protein, the feeding material like this, the soybean or the fish meal. They only use rice, brown rice, and the corn, and the powdered corn and powdered rice, without using any nitrogen source.

19:33 So if you provide a little bit of the small protein source, they can get more the weight harvest yield, and then the growing time will be different. It can be faster, and the labor cost will be lower. And then their income will be increased, I expect. So maybe this year or the next year. In this case, Ethiopia, they produce the G2 seed potato. Production yield. The three cooperatives, and they are compared with conventional, and the big, medium, small size, and the rotten, and the total, the final product.

20:16 In all the three cooperatives, the natural crop gets more harvest yield than the conventional way. And also this is information to compare the cost and other parameters. But in this case, they use like this in the conventional, per hectare. And also the pesticides they use, both in the natural and the CF: one time only. But there are two times or sometimes three times, because you know, this is seed potato, not the real potato.

21:03 This is seed potato. So to produce the clean seed potato, or to get the seed potato certificate, they have to be clean. But the problem is, all around, the natural plots are surrounded by the conventional plots, including the normal farmers' farms. In this case, the late blight broke out due to the very bad weather conditions. And this fungus attacked the natural ground, so there was no option but to use the pesticides in the farm, because this is the project, and I can't let them... I can't say to not use the chemicals in this case.

22:01 Because this is the farmers' profit, the farmers' position, not World Vision's. So I couldn't manage them in this time. So they applied pesticide one time. So pesticide cost is like this, and IMO application amount is like this. They are applying the IMO application, not only the IMO, also FPJ and other natural solutions they applied through the whole cultivation time.

22:48 So 11, totally 11 times they applied natural solutions. And there was labor days like this, or caring labor days like this, and the harvest, and the total input, and the actual yield is like this. So net profit like this; there are big differences between the NF and the CF. All three, the same result, through all the three cooperatives. Conclusion, productivity, input cost, natural and nutritional food accessibility Productivity, statistically, in Sri Lanka case, there are no average productivity differences

23:34 between the beneficiary and non-beneficiary. But it's not caused by the natural product or conventional product. Because they are influenced by one another, parameters one another, the environment, the factors. But the significant differences between before and after are among the beneficiary groups. And the input cost also has a significant difference. And natural and nutritional food accessibility, over 20% improvement has been achieved compared to baseline data. So through this project, the natural and nutritional food accessibility improved.

24:17 The Vietnam Neorganic farming on rice and chicken, pig: productivity input cost income is different for three parameters. Also, there are no significant differences in the average productivity of rice and chicken between the Neorganic and conventional farming. But the production yield of the Neorganic farm is less than the conventional, which is only using the feeding material with a carbohydrate base resource, without protein source. And the input cost in the Neorganic is higher than the conventional, which is making the natural solution and feeding material.

24:54 Total cost of the Neorganic farming is less than conventional in rice and pig production, but not chicken. Income: the net profit of the rice and chicken in the Neorganic product is much higher, up to three times, than conventional. But pig is lower than conventional, due to low productivity in the Neorganic. And in Ethiopia, productivity and input cost: there are no significant differences in the average productivity and input cost between Neorganic and the conventional method.

25:27 Statistically, there are no significant differences in all the three countries, but actually their benefit, their net profit, is higher than the conventional way. So this year or next year, they can get more good impact through this application of natural farming, or the Neorganic farming. I expect. So maybe next year I will share another update with that. Thank you.