IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-1

Research article
erd

Evaluation and Preference Analysis of Improved Rice
Genotypes in TharGaYa Village, Tharsi Township, Myanmar
NYO MAR HTWE*
Yezin Agricultural University, Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar
Email: dr.nyomarhtwe@yau.edu.mm

SU LATT PHYU
Yezin Agricultural University, Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar

KHANT SANDA HTET
Yezin Agricultural University, Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar
Received 22 December 2020

Accepted 24 June 2021(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract This study was conducted to identify high yielding improved rice genotypes which
are adapted to the target location and accepted by local farmers. The experiment was conductedwith a randomized complete block design with three replications, at TharGaYa village, Tharsi
township, Myanmar. Sixteen improved rice lines and two check varieties were examined.
Farmers voted for acceptance or rejection of individual varieties at the vegetative and preharvest stages and these votes were converted to a preference score. A significant difference
among the genotypes tested occurred in yield per plant and its related characters. From thepreference analysis, farmers and researchers showed highest preference for SM1/THY-DH-1-1
at the vegetative stage, followed by YAU-1214-183-3-1-2-1-1 and YAU-1201-90-2-4. At preharvest stage, farmers and researchers elected YAU-1201-90-2-4, followed by YAU-1214-18335-1-1-1 and YAU-1214-183-3-1-1-1-1. According to the sensory evaluation test, the best line
was YAU-1201-90-2-4, with second and third being YAU-1201-26-1-1 and YAU-1201-26-1-3.
There was very strong agreement in preferences for the best performing lines shown by maleand female farmers. However, a weak correlation between researchers and farmers preferences
was identified. This seemingly indicates that farmers and researchers have different criteria inselecting good performing lines. Farmers have prioritized their own way of variety selection for
their localities, using features such as uniformity, lodging, panicle length, effective tillering andearliness. Therefore, it is important to include farmers’ preferences in any selection process todetermine a suitable and acceptable variety.
Keywords correlation, preference score, sensory evaluation, variety selection

INTRODUCTION
Rice is one of the most important cereal crops around the world. Myanmar is an agricultural country,
and agriculture is the backbone of its economy. The agriculture sector contributed 27.5% of GDP;
13.7% of total export earnings; and employed 61.2% of the labor force in 2010 (MOALI, 2010). One
fourth of Myanmar’s total area is cultivated land. In Myanmar, rice production accounted for the
majority of cropping area and it is also the major food source. Rice ecosystems in Myanmar are
generally classified into seven categories: 1) Irrigated rice land, 2) Regular rain-fed lowland, 3)
Drought-prone rain-fed lowland, 4) Deep water rice 5) Submerged rice land, 6) Sea water affected riceland and 7) Upland rice (MOALI, 2010). Since it is a staple crop, having high yielding varieties thatare adaptable for different agro-ecosystems is crucial.
Ⓒ ISERD

88

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-1

Plant breeders develop varieties through conventional breeding and release varieties that are mostproductive under ideal conditions; often they are not suitable for marginal farm conditions (Singh et al.,2014). Therefore, participatory varietal selection, facilitates development of varieties optimal for
marginal soils and acceptable to farmers. Farmers’ preferences represent a part of the genotype
selection and testing process, in order to ensure the large-scale adoption of the selected genotype.
Participatory Variety Selection (PVS) can be used to identify farmer-acceptable varieties
effectively, and thereby overcome the constraints that cause farmers to grow old or obsolete varieties,
or late maturing varieties which are susceptible to drought (Joshi and Witcombe, 1996; Witcombe et al.,1996). PVS trials were conducted on farm under the supervision of farmers, and identification ofadvanced promising lines from the breeding program occurred. It is crucial for plant breeders to
identify which genotypes farmers prefer, and which they dislike, and the reasons for these opinions,adjusted to local conditions. PVS is a rapid and cost-effective way of identifying farmer-preferredcultivars and whether a suitable choice of cultivars exists (Witcombe et al., 2008). Hence, researchcosts can be reduced and adoption rates increased since farmers participate in variety testing andselection (Joshi et al., 1995).
OBJECTIVE
The experiment was conducted to identify high yielding and acceptable improved rice genotypes
adapted to TharGaYa village, Tharsi Township, Myanmar through farmers’ participation.
MATERIALS AND METHODSThe experiment was laid out in a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three replications
in farmers’ fields in TharGaYa village, Tharsi Township, Myanmar. A total of 18 genotypes, including
check varieties (Appendix 1), were raised in seedbeds and transplanted at 21 days after sowing, with adistance of 20 cm between rows and 20 cm within rows. All necessary precautions were taken to
maintain uniform plant population in each treatment replication. The data recorded were 50 %flowering (DTF), plant height (PH), effective tiller per hill (ETPH), panicle length (PLen), spikelets
per panicle (SPP), filled grain percent (FGP), 1000 grain weight (TGW) and yield per plant (YPP).
These data were collected to know the farmer selected line(s) has short duration, medium or short plantheight and high yield. These data were subjected to statistical analysis by using STAR software (STAR,
2014). Preference analysis through casting votes was conducted when most genotypes reached theactive tillering and pre harvesting stages. In case of the selection of farmers, there were a lot of
discussions and meetings with local staff from Department of Agriculture, key farmers and villageauthorities. After that, all the rice farmers who have different land access to grow rice for year-roundcultivation were selected to participate. Additionally, voluntary farmers were asked to include to have avariety of preferences. In order to conduct the preference analysis, 61 farmers and 8 researchers wereparticipated. In Myanmar, most of the farmers were males. Rahman et al., (2015) pointed that female
farmer had different perceptions with males regards the selection process. In this case, the votes wereseparated from male and female farmers and identify whether their perceptions have somehow agreewith each other.
A preference score was determined by using positive votes, negative votes and total votes cast(Paris, 2011). Firstly, the experimental plots were prepared with each line allocated with a bag forcollection of ballots. Farmers were provided with four ballots to vote for two best and two worst lines.
There were either positive or negative sign on one surface of each ballot and the possible reasons fortheir choice on one another. All the votes rooted from the quality of above-mentioned characters since
the participants needed to mention the reason for their votes. To allow examination of farmer
population’ preferences, male farmers’ ballots were blue, females’ pink and researchers’ green. It wasⒸ ISERD

89

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-1

necessary to prepare separate ballot bags to collect the votes for each genotype. All the participants
were asked to mention the reasons for their choices on the back of the ballots. Then preference scoresfor men and women were computed independently through counting positive and negative ballots
collected in each ballot bag. The preference score was calculated as follows.

Pearson’s correlation was used to test the agreement of preferences between male and female
farmers and between researchers and farmers.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Yield and Yield Contributing Characters
Significant differences among the improved rice lines were observed in days to 50% flowering,effective tillers per hill, panicle length, spikelets per panicle, filled grain percent, 1000 grain weightand yield per plant (Table 1). Yield per plant of YAU-1215-183-3-4-1-1-1 line was highest among thetested lines, followed by YAU-1214-183-3-1-1-1-1 and YAU-1214-183-3-3-1-1-1. Yield per plant of
the 9 improved rice lines were higher than those for the two local check varieties. However, effective
tillers per hill was the highest in local check variety, ManawThuKha, followed by YAU-1215-183-3-41-1-1.
Table 1 Mean performance of improved rice lines in TharGaYa village, Tharsi Township
Improved Rice Lines
YAU-1211-195-1-1
YAU-1211-82-1-1
YAU-1211-14-1-1
YAU-1201-26-1-1
YAU-1201-26-1-3
YAU-1201-90-2-4
YAU-1211-118-1-1
YAU-1214-183-3-1-1-1-1
YAU-1214-183-35-1-1-1-1
YAU-1214-183- 3-1- 2-1-1
YAU-1215-183-3-4-1-1-1
YAU-1214-183-3-3-1-1-1
Y8/THY-DH-4-1
Y8/THY-DH-5-1
Y8/THY-DH-9-2
SM1/THY-DH-1-1
MNTK
Yet 90Mean
CV
Pr (>F)
LSD0.05

DTF(days)
99.33
91.00
104.33
94.00
99.33
91.67
94.00
90.00
91.67
92.67
95.00
89.00
91.33
84.67
88.33
84.67
98.67
67.67
91.52
3.01
**
8.477

PH
(cm)
107.27108.20118.80105.33107.87115.9394.20
102.47107.9396.53
96.33
105.40104.6
107.13104.00119.13101.0096.13
105.46
11.45
ns
-

ETPH
(no.)
14.27
14.93
13.13
12.00
14.20
16.20
15.47
15.07
16.07
16.93
18.60
13.93
13.40
14.40
14.20
17.07
19.13
17.67
15.37
15.13
*
7.150

PLen
(cm)
22.23
21.82
21.85
23.34
22.22
22.60
25.57
24.05
23.39
22.90
26.86
24.47
23.63
21.24
20.45
19.90
19.80
21.29
22.65
10.08
*
7.016

SPP
(no.)
149.62142.51147.4396.66
124.0883.49
116.71115.7298.00
90.54
120.01121.92100.95
72.18
68.04
86.53
102.0964.11
105.5917.80**
57.806

FGP
(%)
52.49
70.08
53.51
69.84
58.65
80.62
71.49
89.54
88.13
82.25
83.02
84.94
75.92
88.83
85.1
74.69
73.18
90.94
76.29
8.04
**
18.867

TSW
(g)
19.19
24.75
20.97
28.53
25.20
29.16
26.61
27.53
27.61
26.86
27.53
27.34
26.7
27.32
26.98
23.02
18.55
24.59
25.47
4.85
**
3.797

YPP
(g)
20.73
35.42
21.70
22.74
25.97
31.13
33.97
42.12
38.01
33.83
48.73
39.44
26.90
25.06
22.05
25.11
26.23
25.00
30.23
16.14
**
15.001

DTF = Days to 50% flowering, PH = Plant Height, ETPH = Effective tillers per hill, PLen = Panicle length, SPP = Spikelets
per panicle, FGP = Filled grain percent, TSW = 1000 grain weight, YPP = Yield per plantⒸ ISERD

90

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-1

Preference Analysis
The preference score of different improved rice lines are shown in Fig. 1. At the vegetative stage, bothmale and female farmers show preference for SM1/THY-DH-1-1, followed by YAU-1214-183-3-1-21-1 and YAU-1201-90-2-4. However, researchers selected the most preferable three improved lines in
the following order: Y8/THY DH-5-1, YAU-1201-90-2-4 and SM1/THY-DH-1-1. The reason why
farmers and researchers selected these lines as the most preferable are based on the uniformity in plant
growth, the high to medium tiller numbers per hill and no incidence of pest infestation or diseases. The
least preferred genotypes selected by the farmers were ManawThuKha, Yet90 and YAU-1211-195-1-1.
In combining farmers’ and researchers’ preferences, SM1/THY-DH-1-1, YAU-1214-183-3-1-2-1-1
and YAU-1201-90-2-4 were the most preferable lines at the vegetative stage.

Fig. 1 Farmers’ and researchers’ preferences for improved rice lines at vegetative stagein TharGaYa village, Tharsi TownshipAt pre-harvest stage, the three most preferred lines selected by farmers were YAU-1201-90-2-4,
YAU-1214-183-35-1-1-1-1 and YAU-1214-183-3-1-1-1-1 (Fig. 2). Farmers like these lines because
they exhibit uniform growth, are lodging resistant, have long panicle length, have medium to highly
effective tillers and display earliness. However, researchers selected YAU-1214-183-3-1-1-1-1,
Y8/THY-DH-5-1 and YAU-1214-183-3-4-1-1-1 as the top three preferable lines. At the other extreme,
YAU-1201-26-1-3, Yet90 and Y8/THY-DH-9-2 were the farmers’ choice as the bottom threegenotypes at pre-harvest stage. In all voting, YAU-1201-90-2-4, YAU-1214-183-35-1-1-1-1 and YAU1214-183-3-1-1-1-1 were selected as the most preferable lines. Only one line; YAU-1201-90-2-4 wasfavored at the vegetative and pre-harvest stages. The other genotypes were preferred at only one of thestages considered in the selection process.

Fig. 2 Farmers’ and researchers’ preferences for improved rice lines at pre-harvest stagein TharGaYa village, Tharsi TownshipⒸ ISERD

91

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-1

According to Pearson’s correlations, the results show significant and moderate positive correlation
between male and female farmers’ preference scores (Table 2). This means that, with r = 0.5861 (at 5%
level of significance), male and female farmers ‘somewhat agree’ in their preferences for the best
performing genotypes. When farmers’ preferences (both male and female) are compared with breeders’preferences, the correlation analysis shows a non-significant and slightly positive correlation (r =0.311). The results indicate that there is weak agreement between the farmers’ preferences and theresearchers’ in selecting good performing genotypes.
Table 2 Correlation analysis of preference scores between farmers (male and female)and researcher in TharGaYa village, Tharsi TownshipMale Farmer
Female Farmer
FarmerResearcher

Male farmer
1
0.586*
0.930**
0.293

Female farmer
0.586*
1
0.843**
0.256

Farmer
0.930**
0.843**
1
0.311

Researcher
0.293
0.256
0.311
1

*, ** = significant at 5% and 1% level, respectively

The farmers’ perception of good-performing varieties, as indicated by the preference score, isweakly associated with the researcher-calculated yields for the improved rice lines, with r = 0.345 andnon-significant (Table 3). This means that there is a somewhat weak agreement between the predicted
yields and the resulting choices of the farmers based on their own set of criteria.
Table 3 Correlation analysis of preference scores and yieldin TharGaYa village, Tharsi Township
Yield per plant
1
0.345

Yield per plant
FarmerFarmer0.345
1

Table 4 Sensory evaluation frequencies of rice varietal lines tested
in TharGaYa village, Tharsi Township
Improved Rice Lines
YAU-1211-195-1-1
YAU-1211-82-1-1
YAU-1211-14-1-1
YAU-1201-26-1-1
YAU-1201-26-1-3
YAU-1201-90-2-4
YAU-1211-118-1-1
YAU-1214-183-3-1-1-1-1
YAU-1214-183-35-1-1-1-1
YAU-1214-183- 3-1- 2-1-1
YAU-1215-183-3-4-1-1-1
YAU-1214-183-3-3-1-1-1
Y8/THY-DH-4-1
Y8/THY-DH-5-1
Y8/THY-DH-9-2
SM1/THY-DH-1-1
MNTK
Yet 90

Bad
14
20
27
12
10
7
20
21
26
21
27
19
35
35
31
18
26
28

Fair
30
27
26
31
26
19
32
24
29
29
27
26
19
21
25
28
23
25

Ⓒ ISERD

92

Good
16
13
7
17
24
34
8
15
5
10
6
15
6
4
4
14
11
7

Bad (%)
1.30
1.85
2.50
1.11
0.93
0.65
1.85
1.94
2.41
1.94
2.50
1.76
3.24
3.24
2.87
1.67
2.41
2.59

Fair (%)
2.78
2.50
2.41
2.87
2.41
1.76
2.96
2.22
2.69
2.69
2.50
2.41
1.76
1.94
2.31
2.59
2.13
2.31

Good (%)
1.48
1.20
0.65
1.57
2.22
3.15
0.74
1.39
0.46
0.93
0.56
1.39
0.56
0.37
0.37
1.30
1.02
0.65

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-1

According to the result of sensory evaluation, the improved rice line with good eating quality was
YAU-1201-90-2-4 (Table 4). Lines with fair eating quality were YAU-1211-118-1-1, YAU-1201-261-1 and YAU-1211-195-1-1. Lines with bad eating quality were identified as Y8/THY-DH-4-1,
Y8/THY-DH-5-1 and Y8/THY-DH-9-2. Among the selected line at pre-harvest stage, only YAU1201-90-2-4 had a good eating quality. The YAU-1214-183-3-1-2-1-1 line selected at vegetative stage
and YAU-1214-183-35-1-1-1-1 line selected at pre-harvest stage both had a moderate eating quality.
Therefore, the YAU-1201-90-2-4 line stands as the farmers’ prefer improved rice line and needs toundergo further field testing.
CONCLUSION
Significant differences exist among the tested genotypes and were found in yield per plant and its
component characters. From the preference analysis, farmers and researchers selected SM1/THY-DH1-1 as the best line at the vegetative stage followed by YAU-1214-183-3-1-2-1-1 and YAU-1201-90-24. The reason of selection of these lines are the uniformity in plant growth, the high and medium tillers
number per hill and no incidence of pest and diseases. At the pre-harvest stage, farmers and researchers
selected YAU-1201-90-2-4 as the best followed by YAU-1214-183-35-1-1-1 and YAU-1214-183-3-11-1-1. Farmers like these lines because they have growth uniformity, are lodging resistant, have long
panicle length, have medium to highly effective tillers and display earliness. According to the sensory
evaluation test, the best line is YAU-1201-90-2-4. This line is selected as the preferred line of farmers
at the vegetative and pre-harvest stages. Therefore, YAU-1201-90-2-4 line ranks as the farmers’
preferred improved rice line and needs to be tested again in field trials. There was a very strong
agreement between male and female farmers’ in their preference for the best performing lines at preharvest stage. However, only a weak correlation between researchers’ and farmers’ preferences has
been identified. This indicates that farmers and researchers have different criteria in selecting what is agood performing line. Therefore, it is vitally important to include farmers’ preferences in any variety
selection process.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to Japan International Cooperation Agency(JICA), Project for Capacity Development of Yezin Agricultural University for financial and technicalsupport to conduct this study. Special thanks go to the farmers and staff from Department ofAgriculture, Tharsi Township who participated in this research activities.
REFERENCES
Joshi, A. and Witcombe, J.R. 1996. Farmer participatory crop improvement. II. Participatory varietal selection, acase study in India. Experimental Agriculture, 32, 461-477.
Joshi, K., Rana, R., Subedi, M., Kadayat, K. and Sthapit, B. 1995. Effectiveness of participatory variety testingand dissemination programme: A case study of Chaite rice in the Western Hills of Nepal. LARC Working
Paper (Nepal). 95/49.
MOALI. 2010. Agricultural extension division annual report. Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation.
Paris, T.R. 2011. Guide to participatory varietal selection for submergence-tolerant rice. IRRI.
Rahman, M.A., Thant, A.A., Win, M., Tun, M.S., Moet Moet, P., Thu, A.M., Win, K.T., Myint, T., Myint, O.,
Tuntun, Y. and Labios, R.V. 2015. Participatory varietal selection (PVS): A “bottom-up” breeding approachhelps rice farmers in the ayeyarwady delta, Myanmar. Sabrao Journal of Breeding and Genetics, 47 (3), 299314.

Ⓒ ISERD

93

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-1

Singh, Y., Nayak, A., Sharma, D., Gautam, R., Singh, R., Singh, R., Mishra, V., Paris, T. and Ismail, A. 2014.
Farmers’ participatory varietal selection: A sustainable crop improvement approach for the 21st century.
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 38, 427-444.
STAR, V. 2014. Statistical tools for agricultural reserach. Biometrics and Breeding Informatics, PBGB Division,
International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Laguna.
Witcombe, J., Hollington, P., Howarth, C., Reader, S. and Steele, K. 2008. Breeding for abiotic stresses forsustainable agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363, 703716.
Witcombe, J.R., Joshi, A., Joshi, K.D. and Sthapit, B. 1996. Farmer participatory crop improvement. I. Varietal
selection and breeding methods and their impact on biodiversity. Experimental Agriculture, 32, 445-460.

Appendix 1 Rice genotypes included in PVS
Pedigree source
YAU-1211-195-1-1
YAU-1211-82-1-1
YAU-1211-14-1-1
YAU-1201-26-1-1
YAU-1201-26-1-3
YAU-1201-90-2-4
YAU-1211-118-1-1
YAU-1214-183-3-1-1-1-1
YAU-1214-183-35-1-1-1-1
YAU-1214-183- 3-1- 2-1-1
YAU-1215-183-3-4-1-1-1
YAU-1214-183-3-3-1-1-1
Y8/THY-DH-4-1
Y8/THY-DH-5-1
Y8/THY-DH-9-2
SM1/THY-DH-1-1
MNTK
Yet 90Varietal code
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
G9
G10
G11
G12
G13
G14
G15
G16
G17
G18

Ⓒ ISERD

94

Remarks
Pre-released, Salt Tolerance
Pre-released, Salt Tolerance
Pre-released, Salt Tolerance
Pre-released, Salt Tolerance
Pre-released, Salt Tolerance
Pre-released, Salt Tolerance
Pre-released, Salt Tolerance
Pre-released, High yield
Pre-released, High yield
Pre-released, High yield
Pre-released, High yield
Pre-released, High yield
Pre-released, High yield
Pre-released, High yield
Pre-released, High yield
Pre-released, High yield
Local Check, High yield
Local Check, Short growth duration