Previous Page Table Of ContentsNext Page


Appendices

Appendix A Translation of Interview Schedule for Land Use Histories

NAME

DATE

YEAR

 

RELIGION

KINGMI (1)

CATHOLIC (2)

MUSLIM (3)

   

OUTBOARD MOTOR

IF YOU HAVE ONE WHEN DID YOU BUY IT?

CHAINSAW

IF YOU HAVE ONE WHEN DID YOU BUY IT?

NO. OF WORKERS

HOW MANY PEOPLE IN YOUR HOUSE?

 

HOW MANY MEN WORK IN THE RICEFIELD?

HOW MANY WOMEN WORK IN THE RICEFIELD?

HOW MANY PEOPLE DO NOT WORK?

RICEFIELD No. X

LOCATION

SITE

 

DISTANCE

FROM VILLAGE

HOW MANY KILOMETERS FROM THE VILLAGE

FOREST

OLD GROWTH

YOUNG SECONDARY

OLD SECONDARY

OLD FIELD

TOPOGRAPHY

HILLY

MIXED

LOWLAND

 

SEEDS

HOW MANY TINS OF SEEDS

 

HARVEST

HOW MANY TINS DID YOU HARVEST

 

PROBLEMS WITH FIELD No. X

WATER

FLOOD

DROUGHT

ANIMALS

FLOOD&DROUGHT

RATS

PIGS

INSECTS

MONKEYS

BIRDS

LOCUSTS

DEER

OTHER

WORMS - ulet

 

"ANTS" - kamang

DISEASE - ngeruseng

punai

njau alang

"FLEAS" - kutip

OTHER

OTHER

BAD EXTENSION

 
 

BAD SEED

BAD BURN

HARD RAIN WHEN RICE FLOWERING

LATE PLANTING

FIRST PLANTING DIED

EMPTY SEED PODS, SMALL CLUSTERS

LODGING

HARVEST TOO LATE

LATER PLANTING DIED / NO GRAINS

INADEQUATE WEEDING

DISEASE

OTHER USES OF RICE SO NOT COUNTED

EXPERIMENTING

TOO FEW STALKS

INCOMPLETE HARVEST

OTHER

LABOUR

SICK/HUNGRY/TIRED

OTHERS HELPED, LESS FOR OWNER

MAN FAR, DEAD, OR INJURED

SOMEONE LEFT FOR SCHOOL OR MARRIAGE

WOMAN IS FAR, DEAD, PREGNANT, OR CHILD CARE

OTHER WORK

AFRAID OF KILLERS

BUSY LOOKING FOR FOOD

RICEFIELD WAS TOO BIG

MAN AND WOMAN BOTH UNAVAILABLE

SOIL

BAD

TOO LITTLE LAND

COULDN'T CLEAR ENOUGH

RICE

SUFFICIENCY

GOOD

ENOUGH

NOT ENOUGH

SOLUTIONS

IF THERE WASN'T ENOUGH, WHAT DID YOU DO?

GATHER RATTAN

LOOK FOR GOLD

EAT CASSAVA

MAKES BEAMS/BOARDS

ASK FROM PEOPLE

ASK FROM RELATIVES

WORK IN A COMPANY

HUNT FOR PIGS AND FISH

MAKE SHINGLES

OTHER

Appendix B - List of Species Used by Uma' Jalan, East Kalimantan Identified by Paulus Matius, Herbarium Mulawarman' University Collected by Tamen Uyang

Herb

No

Kenyah

Species

Family

1

Wei Bi'eng

Korthalsia echinometra Becc

Arecaceae

2

Bulo' umit

Schizostachyum sp.

Poaceae

3

Aka kelese

Spatholobus oblongifolius Merr.

Fabaceae

4

Aka umpet

Satholobus percicinus Rid.

Fabaceae

5

Nyibung

Oncosperma horridum (Griff) scheffer

Arecaceae

6

Tat

Cratoxylum arborescens (Vahl) B1

Hypericaceae

8

Wei aing

Korthalsia rigida B1

Arecaceae

9

Bacut

Artocarpus lanceifolius Roxb

Moraceae

10

Kayu tanyit

Koompassia excelsa Taub

Fabaceae

11

Kayu ipil

Intsia palembanica Miq

Fabaceae

12

Sang anau

Pholidocarpus majadum Becc

Arecaceae

13

Kayu tekajeng

Duabanga moluccana BI

Datiscaceae

14

Bua' pengubi

Santiria tomentosa BI.

Burseraceae

15

Wei seka

Calamus caesius BI

Arecaceae

16

Wei jahap

Camus trachycoleus Becc

Arecaceae

18

Bulo' busi

Schizostachyum caudatum Backer

---Poaceae

19

Sang

Licuala valida Becc

Arecaceae

20

Aka kalawit

Uncaria gambir (hunter) Roxb

Rubiaceae

21

Bua' ulem

Solanum torvum Sw.

Solanaceae

22

Kidau

Hibiscus macrophyl. Ro. ext Hornem

Malvaceae

23

Bungur

Lagerstroemia Ovalifolia T et B

Lythraceae

24

Kayu ncuung

Cinnamomum partenoxylon Meissn

Lauraceae

25

Nangka air

Artocarpus teysmanii Miq

Moraceae

28

Aka bala

Vitis sp.

Vitaceae

29

Bua' leset

Lansium domesticum Corr

Meliaceae

30

Kayu besuk

Syzygium sp.

Myrtaceae

31

Buá abung

Nephelium mutabile BI

Sapindaceae

32

lyung

Saccharum spontaneum L

Poaceae

33

Tite' telajan

Alpinia sp. 2

Zingiberaceae

34

Udu tu'en

Ageratum cf. conyzoides L.

Asteraceae

34/99

Tite' Ian

Alpinia sp. 3

 

35

Udu alo'

Paspalum conjugatum Berg.

Poaceae

36

Pakat a'e

Imperate cylindrica (L) Beauv.

Poaceae

37

Udu tebeyeh

Crinum asiaticum L.

Amaryllidaceae

38

Lung bala

Alocasia sp.

Araceae

40

Sanam pidek

Ctenolophon sp.

Linaceae

41

Udu sepa

Piper bette L.

Piperaceae

42

Aka unga

Piper cubeba L. f.

Piperaceae

43

Simo

Psidium guajava L.

Myrtacea

44

Dian aló

Anona muricata L.

Annonaceae

45

Empung

Blumea balsamifera (L.) D. C.

Asteraceae

46

Udu bala

Sonchus arvensis L.

Asteraceae

47

Payang salap

Aleurites moluccana (L.) Willd.

Euphorbiaceae

48

Pasak bumi

Eurycoma longifolia Jack.

Simaroubaceae

49

Bute baa

Callicarpa albida Thung.

Verbenaceae

50

Bao

Lantana camara L.

Verbenaceae

51

Kayu baran

Euphoria sp.

Sapindaceae

52

Peti lata'

Musa paradisiaca L.

Musaceae

53

Kayu ujan

Ananas comosus (L) Merr.

Bromeliaceae

54

Aka dapit

Tinospora rumphii Boer

Menispermaceae

55

Ubi

Manihot esculenta Crantz

Euphorbiaceae

56

Luang mali

Neolitsea sp.

Lauraceae

57

Bulo' tup

Gigantochloa apus (Bl.ex Sch.F) Kurz.

Poaceae

58

Limpo'

Solanum frutescens L.

Solanaceae

59

Udu kapan

Kalanchoe pinnata (Lam) Per.

Crassulaceae

60

Udu ta'i

Erigeron sp.

Asteraceae

61

Udu top

Physallis minima Linn

Solanaceae

62

Beta alo'

Leucaena leucocephala (Lmk.) De Wit

Fabaceae

63

Udu bawang

Allium schoenoprasum L.

Amaryllidaceae

64

Tite' sada bai

Catimbium muticum

Zingiberaceae

65

Paku danum

Arcypteris irregularis (Pr.) Holit

Athyriaceae

66

Ga'at

Areca catechu L.

Arecaceae

67

Peluan

Costus speciosus BI.

Zingiberaceae

68

Udu berau

Striga asiatica (L.) 0. Ktze

Scrophulariaceae

69

Bia kalung

Alocasia puber (Hassk.) Schott

Aracea

71

Udu kep

Cassia alata L.

Fabaceae

72

Kayu asa

Lepisanthes alata

Sapindaceae

73

Aka balet

Arcangelisia flava (L.) Merr.

Menispermaceae

74

Bua' taket iyap

Lepisanthes amoena (Hassk.) Leenh.

Sapindaceae

75

Aka selaput

Lygodium flexuosum (L.) Sw.

Schizaeaceae

77

Pidang aló

Passiflora foetida L.

Passifloraceae

78

Paku sip

Pityrogramma calomelanos (L.) Link

Hemionitidaceae

79

Aka saleng

Leea simplicifolia Zoll.

Leeaceae

80

Temaha

Vitex pinnata L.

Verbenaceae

81

Sengela

Costus globosus BI.

Zingiberaceae

82

Udu mading

Erigeron sumatrensis Retz.

Asteraceae

83

Lurun

Wedelia sp.

Asteraceae

84

Sengkaiyu

Curcculigo villosa Wallich

Amaryllidaceae

85

Dincen

Limnocharis flava (L) Buch.

Butomaceae

86

Bua' belusut

Zingiber griffithii

Zingiberaceae

87

Buá apau

llex sp.

Aquifoliaceae

88

Temadau

Saccharum sp.

Poaceae

89

Laung

Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott

Araceae

90

Nyadung

Donax canniformis K. Schum.

Maranthaceae

91

Paku pa'it

Athyrium sozongonense (Presl.) Milde

Athyriaceae

92

Paku julut

Nephrolepis bisserata (Sw.) Schott

Nephrolepidacea

93

Bererong

Lasia spinosa (I.) Thw.

Araceae

94

Atat

Smilax odoratissima BI

Smilaxceae

95

Wei belinau

Plectocomiopsis geminiflora (Gri.) Sec.

Arecaceae

96

Pengudip

Dillenia excelsa (Jack) Gilg.

Dilleniaceae

97

Sungkai

Peronema canescens Jack

Verbenaceae

98

Benuang

Anthocephalus chinensis (Lamk) Rich

Rubiaceae

100

Tite' tepo

Alpinia sp.1

Zingiberaceae

101

Palu jaat

Lygodium sp.

Schizaeaceae

103

Kayu kapur

Dryobalanops beccarii Dyer

Dipterocarpaceae

104

Sanam petan

Polyalthia sp.

Annonaceae

105

Bengkirai

Shorea laevis RidI.

Dipterocarpaceae

106

Kayu adau

Elmerillia mollis Dandy.

Magnoliaceae

107

Keruing

Dipterocarpus cornutus Dyer.

Dipterocarpaceae

108

Beli'en

Eusideroxylon zwageri T. et. B.

Lauraceae

109

Kayu ba'o'

Aiseodaphne obovata Kosterm.

Lauraceae

110

Sua' alat

Endertia spectabilis V.St.et. de Witt

Fabaceae

111

Kayu ngelidan

Cananga odorata Hk. f.

Annonaceae

112

Kiten

Urena sp.

Malvaceae

120

Keramo'

Dacryodes rostrata H.H.L.

Burseraceae

121

Birai

Salacca edulis Reinw.

Arecaceae

122

Kayu palan palut

Platea latifolia BI.

Icacinaceae

123

Kayu nyerapung

Beilschmiedia rosseliana Kosterm.

Lauraceae

124

Kayu iyem

Symplocos pasciculata Zoll.

Symplocaceae

125

Kayu tukan tuke'

Mammea sp.

Clusiaceae

126

Kayu segat

Lithocarpus bennetti Miq

Fagaceae

127

Kayu bine

Macaranga trichocarpa

Euphorbiaceae

128

Kayu tulang

Pteleocarpus lampongus Bakh.

Boraginaceae

129

Kayu saleng

Diospyros macrophylla BI.

Ebenaceae

130

Bua' sala

Flacourtia inermis

Flacourtiaceae

131

Kayu suling julut

Glochidion obscurum

Euphorbiaceae

Al

Pakuq paya

Stenochlaena palustris (Burm.) Bedd

Blechnaceae

A2

Benoa'

Macaranga triloba (Reich f et Zoll)

Euphorbiaceae

A4

Lemutin

Melastoma malabathricum L

Melastomataceae

A5

Kayu Payau

Dillenia reticulata King

Dilleniaceae

A6

Pidang

Passiflora foetida L

Passifloraceae

A7

Ncau lutung

Alstonia scholaris R. Br.

Apocynaceae

A8

Bureng

Caryota sp. Becc

Arecaceae

A9

Gitsilu

Tetracera scandens (L) Merr

Dilleniaceae

7

Sakilang

Barringtonia sp.

Lecythidaceae

 

Kayu buo

Caryota maxima BI.

Arecaceae

Appendix C - Year by Year Account of Rice Cultivation Long Segar, East Kalimantan, 1970-1990

On Problems and Solutions

The following year by year account of rice production in Long Segar is very detailed. The purpose is to demonstrate the instability of rice production in this environment, the continuing adaptations of the people to such instability, and the specific kinds of problems encountered over time. This kind of information can also serve as a reasonably accurate foundation on which to build scientifically, and improve the overall agroecosystem used by integral shifting cultivators.

In the final sections of the form (on problems and solutions, see Appendix A), the cultivators were not specifically asked about each possible problem or solution; rather they were asked what had caused problems with their rice that year. If they had not produced enough rice, they were then asked how they had fulfilled their subsistence needs. The responses were simply checked, on the form (or in rare cases, new ones were added).

1970

In 1970, the number of families in Long Segar more than doubled, reaching 37,' including four aristocratic families. The 36 who could remember reported 41 fields, covering 97 ha in nine general locations. One new cluster area in Kernyanyan (Lalut Layok) and one on the Telen (Bua' Dong) were opened in addition to previous locations; Baran Muyut on the Telen was abandoned. People returned to two areas used earlier, Kernyanyan and the airstrip, to make new fields. The average distance between village and field was 1.4 kilometers.

Old growth forest was cut for 75.5 ha in 29 fields. Old secondary forest was cut for 14 ha in eight ricefields. Again most fields (32) were on hilly topography, with seven in lowlands, and one mixed. Three somewhat large fields (two by commoners, 7.5 and 4.5 ha, and one by an aristocrat, 5.5 ha) were cut. The average size was 2.4 ha.

As the number of fields and people increased, and as the number of years from the present diminished, the number of agricultural problems remembered predictably increased. People reported flooding on three fields and water shortage on six. Wind caused lodging on one field. Fourteen fields were attacked by pigs, three by rats, three by birds, and one by monkeys. Kamang2 attacked one field. Illness prevented two families from weeding adequately and another family from clearing sufficient land for their field. Two other families reported generalized problems with labour due to illness. In a sixth the man of the house was unavailable to help, resulting in a reported decrease in yield.

All in all 27 of the families had good to adequate yields; eight were inadequate; and one is missing. Mean yields were 1,176 kg/ha.

By 1971, only four new families had come to Long Segar. The people made 44 fields (plus one or more by Pelibut), covering 107.5 ha, in 10 locations. No one planted in Salip this year, but they returned to Baran Muyut on the Telen, and added Loa Priyok. The distance to the fields from Long Segar averaged 1.7 kilometers.

The range of types of vegetation from which ricefields were cut increased. Thirty fields were cut from old growth (89.5 ha), five from old secondary (9.5 ha), three from young secondary (2.5 ha), and five were planted in the previous year's ricefield (six ha). Again most people planted on hilly areas (34 fields), with only 10 fields in lowlands. Average field size was 2.4 ha.

Only seven fields suffered from water problems, with flooding reported for two fields and drought for five. Lodging was reported for one lowland field. Again pigs were the biggest animal problem (12 fields were affected), with monkeys a distant second (three fields). Deer, rats, locusts, kamang, and njau alang constituted minor irritants (from the community perspective), affecting one field each. The rice in three fields had empty panicles, and a fourth was reported to have an unidentified plant disease. In one field, a low yield was blamed on poor soil.

Labour problems also reduced yields. In two families illness interfered with their agricultural labour. Neither could clear sufficient land, and one was unable to guard the field or weed sufficiently. In two other families both husband and wife were unavailable for their usual agricultural work. In one the husband died that year and their children were still too young for the woman's full involvement. In another, the wife had a new baby and two older, productive children married out. In an additional family the husband was busy with banjir kap and was unavailable. Another family had significant other work, reducing their involvement in rice production. Each of these families only had one field.

Two families mentioned that many new people had come and helped with the harvest. This "help" (paid for with rice) significantly reduced the amount of rice the family actually took home. One of these families had no idea how much they produced, though the harvest was good; the other only counted (and reported) what they had taken home.

This was an average sort of year. Twenty six families reported good or adequate yields; and 12 reported insufficient rice yields for normal subsistence. Average rice yields were 1,371 kg/ha.

1972 - A Year of Drought

In the year of the first big drought,' 1972, there was an influx of 21 Catholic families,4 and no yields for 69% of Long Segar's families. The number of aristocratic families rose to 19 (20% of all families). One hundred and nine rice fields were planted, by 97 families, more than doubling the population and the number of fields. Total hectarage planted to rice was 352 ha. Eight families had two fields, and two more had three fields. Unlike the previous year, the community made no ricefields in Loa Priyok, Lalut Layok, Boa' Dong or the airstrip area. They returned to Salip. New areas included Long Marah and Juk Utui, on the Telen. Distance from village to field rose to two kilometers.

Again large percentages of the hectarage prepared for ricefields was cut from old growth (333 ha), with old secondary a distant second (17 ha). One field of 1.5 ha was a mixture of the two. Hilly topography predominated, with 102 fields. Lowlands were chosen for five fields, and mixed topography for one. From an agricultural standpoint, 1972 was a disastrous year. The drought was so severe that no other agricultural problem was mentioned. All fields were affected, and only one family reported having enough rice for its needs. The average yield was 72 kg/ha.

The most common methods of dealing with this disaster included eating cassava, hunting and fishing more avidly, and leaving the village to look for paid employment elsewhere. Asking for help from relatives and friends either locally or in other villages was another common solution (Dove's 1988 discussion of inter-village solidaritv in West Kalimantan).

1973 - The Year of Rats

The year of the rats, 1973, was not a great deal better. Only 226 ha were planted this year, in 16 locations. A far larger proportion of the 103 families planted two ricefields (23). Average kilometers from the village to the field was now 2.2. There was a much fuller spread among the types of vegetation from which fields were cut than usual. The previous year's field was re-used in 34 cases, covering 49 ha. Young secondary forest was cleared for 15 fields (19 ha); old secondary was cleared for nine fields (9.5 ha). Only 66 of the 126 fields were cleared from old growth (143 ha), with two others cut from mixed types (5.5 ha). Topography was also more variable than usual, with 75 of the fields in hilly areas, 45 in lowlands, and four composed of both. Average field size had shrunk to 1.8 ha.

Agricultural problems were quite significant. Water problems only affected seven fields (four by flood and three by drought). But 109 fields were adversely affected by rats. Pigs attacked ten fields, birds one, and locusts three. A bad burn, after tree felling and prior to planting, adversely affected one field. Labour was a bigger problem than usual. One family had other opportunities for subsistence, but most were in pretty dire straits. Ten families were too ill or weak to perform their agricultural tasks properly. The absence of eight men in five other families was mentioned as creating a significant labour shortage. They had all gone to work for companies (mainly logging), to supplement the meagre harvests of 1972. Still another family had several babies, effectively removing the woman from productive activity. One older female household head was sick herself and her son had gone to work for a company. Another family left only one person to work the fields, while everyone else hunted, fished, and worked cutting underbrush for one kilogram of rice/day. A third family sent a woman to Long Gemar (another Kenyah company, and another man to make money or produce whatever he could. Two additional families reported being too busy looking for their daily food to engage in real agricultural work. Twenty-one families in all reported significant labour problems. Harvests were adversely affected by the unavailability of seeds (25 fields). Six families mentioned being unable to clear as much land as they would have liked, because of various labour problems. Only 25% of Long Segar's families had total rice production of more than 1,000 kg (see Table 6). Of the 101 families assessing their yields, 82% considered them inadequate to their subsistence needs. Mean yields were 420 kg/ha.

1974

Fortunately 1974 brought a return to a more normal pattern. The 106 families now residing in Long Segar planted 119 ricefields, which covered 290 ha of land. The dispersal around Long Segar continued to be considerable. Seventeen locations were used, with ten forming clusters of 3-40 fields and seven composed of fewer than three fields. Fields were now, on average, 2.8 kilometers from Long Segar.

The predominance of old growth as the vegetation type on land cut for ricefields resumed its old preeminence: 105 fields were of this type, covering 266 ha. Seven more hectares were cut for three fields on mixed vegetation, including old growth. Old secondary forest was cut for 10.5 ha (six ricefields), and seven ha were planted to old ricefields (n=5). Hilly topography characterized 83 fields, and lowlands 30, with four of mixed topography.

Flooding adversely affected 19 fields, and one field had water shortage problems. The ripe grain was washed away by heavy rains in another field. Two families reported losses from lodging. Pigs were again a sizable problem, reducing yields on 40 fields. Rats caused problems on eight fields, monkeys on nine, and birds on one field. Locusts disturbed four fields, and another was beset by a variety of insect pests. Various individual problems occurred: One family had a bad field burn, another felt their seeds had been bad, a third complained of bad soil (at the airstrip). Three more complained of empty panicles, small grain clusters or too few rice stalks.

Again labour was a problem for many people (24 families). Two couldn't harvest enough and another couldn't clear enough land because of illness. A fourth suffered generalized agricultural labour problems because of illness. Some families had a shortage of men: One family reported having only one woman left alone to manage the farm. Another had a son marry and move away, and a resident son-in-law die. Other families had a shortage of female labour: One family reported too many small children that year; and five families had new babies for their mothers to care for. Some families had a shortage of all workers. One family lost three members (one died and two moved away); another had two nuclear families (12 people) move away; another had a new baby and a death; still another had a new baby and several older children leave for schooling; a final family reported spending much valuable time during the harvest period looking for a woman who had drowned.

These labour constraints affected various stages of the production cycle. Three families were unable to weed adequately (due to new babies), thus reducing their yields. Four families were unable to complete their harvests (including the one mentioned that was affected by illness). Another misjudged family labour availability and cleared more than they could farm. One family hadn't been able to plant sufficient quantities because of a shortage of seed.

Eighty eight families reported having enough or more than enough, with only 12 families truly short of rice (six unknown). Yields averaged 1,342 kg/ha. One family's measured yield was reduced by "helpers" who earned rice for their labour. One family reported less than the real harvest because they used the rice immediately (uncounted) to replace their home which had burned down.

1975 - A Year of Flood

By 1975, there were 115 Long Segar households, planting 123 ricefields. They cleared and/or planted 308 hectares. Ricefields were planted in 20 locations,5 eleven of which included three or more families. The largest cluster was 15 families. Average distance to fields rose to 3 kilometers. Six families bought chainsaws in 1975. Two hundred and eighty hectares of old growth were cut (for 109 fields), with 15 more hectares on mixed fields, including old growth. Old secondary forest was cut for six ha (three fields); and young secondary, for 3.5 (two fields). Only three ha of old ricefield were used. Sixty-nine of the fields were on hilly terrain, with 28 in the lowlands. Mixed topography characterized 24 fields.

A memorable flood occurred in the Telen River in 1975, inundating much of the village and adversely affecting 45 fields. Nine others were affected by drought and one by both. Pigs were a problem in 30 fields, rats in five, monkeys in six, and birds in one. Five farmers complained of locust attacks, one of worms (ulet). One complained of a variety of insects. Six farmers harvested only empty seedpods. One family had to plant a second time because the first crop died; another found its later plantings dying.

Again, labour was a significant constraint. Five people mentioned illness interfering with the care of their fields. New babies in four families removed the only woman in each household from agricultural involvement, and another woman was away visiting in another village. Four families reported shortages of both sexes. In one, a daughter died and the husband left; in another two men went away to work and two new babies were born; in a third, a baby was born and a child got married and moved away. In two additional families, sons were away at school or working; in another the husband went visiting at another village; another man was injured while felling the trees for the family ricefield; in all cases the persons were away from active agricultural involvement for significant periods of time.

Some farmers linked their labour problems to specific stages of the agricultural process. Three families were unable to clear enough land. The man who was injured felling trees planted late. Three families reported not being able to weed adequately (one because of sickness, one because of other work, and the third for unknown reasons). Two families could not complete their harvests, because of labour problems; and a third had miscalculated, clearing too big a ricefield.

Of the 105 families who assessed their yields, 24% reported insufficient yields. The remainder reported good to adequate yields. The mean yield was 1,026 kg/ha. This included two families who reported less rice than they actually harvested. In one case, the son-in-law stole the newly harvested rice; in another the family used an undetermined amount of their yield to buy house construction materials. One farmer working a field on the Kernyanyan river (two km away) reported bad soil affecting his yield.

1976

This year 120 families cleared 354 ha for 124 ricefields. There were 23 clusters (including five in the Kernyanyan River system) reported, 11 with only one or two families. The distance to fields still hovered around three kilometers. Another 16 families bought chainsaws in 1976. The first ces (outboard motors for canoes) came to Long Segar this year, with five families buying them. Of the 354 ha, 325 (111 fields) were cut from old growth, with an additional 2.5 ha field prepared from mixed forest including old growth. Six fields (14.5 ha) were cut from old secondary; and five fields (10.5 ha) from young secondary. One old field was used (1.5 ha). The vast majority of fields were planted on hilly topography (106), with nine in the lowlands, and seven mixed.

This year drought was a bigger problem than flooding (consistent with the topography): Sixty three fields were affected by water shortage; with only six affected by flooding; one suffered from both. Lodging adversely affected two fields. Animal pests were distributed among various species this year: Pigs were reported disturbing nine fields, rats four, monkeys four, birds three, and deer two. Locusts were reported on seven fields, and worms on one. Eight farmers reported empty seedpods; five reported having to plant twice because the first planting died; and two reported the rice dying in areas planted later. Five farmers blamed their problems on bad seed.

As usual, many problems related to labour availability were reported. Six families suffered from significant amounts of sickness. One widow complained of no male help; and in two other families, a husband and a son were away working for a company. In one family a productive son left for school. Four women couldn't perform

1977

their usual agricultural duties because of new babies. In the fifth family reporting a shortage of female labour, the wife had died. Of the three families reporting a shortage of both men and women, all the women were removed from agriculture by bearing new babies. One husband was sick; one worked locally; and a resident son-in-law went away to work for a company. A fourth family missed the labour of a son and daughter-in-law who moved away.

Two families couldn't weed adequately because of illness; and two more couldn't complete their harvest for the same reason. One family harvested too late because their labour was needed for many exchange labour parties, and the wife was afraid to go to her ricefield alone. There were rumors of ayau alo' (foreign killers; in this case, in search of the blood deemed necessary to run oil drilling equipment). Although the mean yield was lower than average (903 kg/ha) in 1976, 81 % of the families who assessed their yields reported having adequate or good rice supplies.

Total land cleared in 1977 was 353 ha. One hundred and twenty nine fields were made from this land by 121 families. Twenty named locations (and five additional locations along the Kernyanyan river) were specified as ricefield clusters. Average distance between ricefield and home rose to 3.7 kilometers this year. Fourteen more families bought chainsaws, and 23 more bought outboard motors.

One hundred and ten ricefields were made from 316 ha of old growth, plus a 2.5 ha field of mixed forest type including old growth. Sixteen ha of old secondary forest fell for six fields, and 7.5 ha of young secondary (five fields). Use of old fields increased to 11 ha (seven fields). Topographically, 99 ricefields were made on hilly terrain, and 25 in the lowlands. Three were on mixed topography. Seven farmers complained of bad soil, in seven different places.

Flooding was a problem on 12 fields, and drought on 42. Two fields suffered from incomplete field burning because their cleared land never completely dried out. Pigs were the most troublesome animal, affecting 14 fields, with monkeys a close second (13 fields). Rats (in four fields) and birds (in three) were relatively unimportant, from a community point of view. Locusts were found in three fields, worms in two and kamang in one. Bad seeds were blamed for reduced yields in four fields; and for the first (almost only) time, government extension services were blamed by one family for inaccurate extension advice. In four families the first planting died, and had to be replanted; and in a fifth, the later plantings died. Four reported empty seed pods. One farmer attributed his problems to "disease."

Two families said they couldn't clear enough land, one due to illness, the other (a teacher currently active in village leadership), due to lack of help he had usually received from other community members. For the first time, a family complained that there had been too little land (of the secondary forest type desired) available where they wanted to plant. Three families planted late. One couldn't plant on time because their field hadn't dried sufficiently to burn properly. Another had many sick children. Three families also didn't weed sufficiently. One simply didn't have time; one had a new baby; and the other was sick. All four of the families who did not complete their harvests were plagued by illness. All in all ten households reported significant reductions in their productivity because of illness. Seven families attributed the reduction in their labour force to their women having just had babies; and another was deprived of the woman's labour by her death. Among the seven households reporting shortages of men's labour, two men had gone away to work for the Transmigration Program, one man had left his wife, two men had left to work for companies, one young man had left home, and another family had boys in school. Of the three families reporting overall shortages, two specified illness as a major contributing factor. A group from one family took their father to Samarinda for medical treatment. The second family also reported the children to be busy with schoolwork, and the father to be busy with village affairs. Three families also missed the labour of their children who had left for schooling. Of the 112 farmers assessing their yields in 1977, 19%, like in 1976, felt they did not have sufficient rce for their needs. The average yield was 1,015 kg/ha.

1978

In 1978, 108 families made single fields, 18 made two, and one made three (total: 127). Three hundred and forty eight ha were. planted to rice, in 26 locations, including five in Kernyanyan. Eleven of these locations were planted by only one or two families. People were now travelling an average of 4.4 kilometers to their fields. Seven more families bought chainsaws; and 46 bought outboard motors.

Again the most popular forest type was old growth (127 fields, covering 312 ha), with an additional mixed field of 2.5 ha. Old secondary forest fields numbered four (6.5 ha), and young secondary, seven (9 ha). The previous year's ricefield was used in eight cases totalling 17.5 ha. Hilly topography dominated with 96 fields, but lowlands were planted in 45 cases. Three were of mixed topography.

Flooding and drought were approximately equally troublesome in 1978. Thirty three fields were flooded and 30 suffered water shortage. In another field, a significant amount of the ripe grain was washed away by rains. Pigs were the most problematic animal, affecting 29 fields, with monkeys affecting 20 more. Rats, birds, and deer caused problems in five, two, and one field, respectively. Locusts significantly affected seven fields; two fields reported generalized insect problems; and one field each suffered from worms and kutip (an unidentified insect). Eight fields were affected by empty panicles; the first planting on one field died and had to be replanted. Five fields suffered from late planting, and on two additional fields later plantings died.

Two were adversely affected by inadequate weeding, and two had a bad burn. An additional family couldn't clear enough land because of illness. Seven complained of bad soil; and five complained of bad seeds. One couldn't complete the harvest (because of illness). Illness affected the harvests of fourteen families, in all. New babies inhibited women's work in seven families. In another, the wife died, leaving the man to manage alone. In seven families husbands or sons left for wage labour in logging companies, or further afield (including Balikpapan, Pontianak, Surabaya, or Sumatra). One man got injured felling the trees to make a ricefield and couldn't work that year. Young people in three families got married and moved away, significantly reducing the available labour. Only two families reported labour shortages due to children going away to school. One man wasn't available for agricultural labour because he went hunting upriver. Altogether 30 families reported significant labour problems.

Families assessing their yields (n=112) reported food sufficiency in 80% of the cases. Average yields per field were 970 kg/ha. One family mentioned using a significant portion of their harvest to buy an outboard motor, reducing their reported yield.

1979 - The Flood at Boa' Dong

In 1979, the year during which initial data collection was carried out, the 130 households who planted rice used 410 ha in 24 locations (including seven estimated clusters in Kernyanyan). Eight locations had only one or two families. A huge cluster of 56 fields was opened at Batu Bulan; and nearby Boa' Dong, a lowlying area along the Telen River, had another large cluster of 38 ricefields. Boa' Dong had been identified as a location where the Government expected to install pumps to irrigate from the Telen. The pumps never came, but a major flood wiped out all 38 fields in December. In 1979, the number of families with only one ricefield dropped to 75, with 51 having two and four having three fields. Average field size was 2.2 ha.

Old growth was cleared for 345 ha of ricefield (146 fields), plus one ha of mixed forest types. Old secondary forest was cleared for 21 ha (11 fields) and young secondary for 35.5 ha (24 fields). Ex-ricefields were used for 7.5 ha (seven fields). Topographically, nearly half were on lowlands (67 fields), with ten on mixed topography. One hundred and seven fields were made in the hills. The distance to Long Segar fields increased yet again, to 4.9 kilometers. Three more families got chain saws and 23 got outboard motors.

The December flood was the major problem this year, with 74 fields adversely affected (many completely wiped out). A short term drought had occurred in October, reducing yields on many fields. The severity of the flooding, however, like the 1972 drought, probably resulted in under-reporting of the less severe water shortage. Only ten fields were reported affected by the earlier drought. One farmer complained of lodging. Rats were the worst animal pests this year, affecting 13 fields, with monkeys a close second (12 fields). Pigs and deer each caused problems on four fields, and birds disturbed one field. Locusts were a veritable plague at Batu Bulan (the large cluster mentioned earlier). Forty nine fields were significantly affected. One farmer complained of various insects. The flooding and the locusts were significant enough to minimize the importance of other typical problems. Two farmers complained of empty panicles; another of bad seed; a third of bad soil. One family said there had been too little land available where they wanted to plant.

Even labour problems were far less prominent in farmers' accounts of the year. Three families hadn't been able to clear enough land because of labour problems. One reported sickness, another a death, and a third left town to work for a company (bringing his usually productive wife with him). Five families reported sickness to be a significant labour constraint for them. Four families reported labour problems because of childcare (three new babies). In another family, a man left to work for a company. Two families mentioned other work that interfered with agriculture (one opened a small store, and one was a teacher).

Although a mean yield per hectare of 405 kg was found, the figure is meaningless. Data were collected after the flood but before most families had any idea of their total harvest, thus far over-representing those fields wiped out by the flood. Most people maintained 1979 was not a particularly bad year, overall.

1980

Of the sixty families interviewed, 83% had only one field, 15%, two, and 2%, three fields .6 In typical Uma' Jalan fashion, 73% of the fields were in old growth, 10% in old secondary, 8% in young secondary, and 9% in the previous year's ricefield. Although hilly areas remained the most popular (67%), mixed topography emerged as a significant topographical type, accounting for 22% of the fields. Lowland areas, flooded out the year before, were least popular, with 11 % of the fields. Average field size was 2.5 ha, and mean distance was 5.5 kilometers.

In 1980, pigs were the worst threat to rice yields, adversely affecting 25% of the fields. Rats attacked 11 % of the fields. Monkeys and birds each affected 4% of the fields. There were several other minor problems: subnormal amounts of grain characterized crops in 3% of the fields. Farmers also complained of a bad field burn, being unable to weed sufficiently, and unable to complete their harvest. In 1980, only 4% of the fields were adversely affected by labour problems.

Although 16% of the fields were reported to be adversely affected by drought, and 7% by flooding, 1980 was considered a good year, with 82% of the people reporting good or adequate yields. Average rice yields per field were reasonably good for upland rice at 1,166 kg/ha.

1981

Eighty-four percent of the 61 families surveyed had only one field; the remainder had two. The pattern of forest use was quite similar to that of the year before (see Figure 4). Hilly topography remained the preferred land form, with 62% of the fields in 1981; but mixed topography was gaining in popularity (30%). The lowlands remained a rarity, with only 7% of the fields. Average hectarage remained around 2.5 ha, and average distance to fields only dropped slightly below 5.5 kilometers.

Rats, pigs and monkeys again plagued people's agricultural efforts, affecting 8%, 7% and 11% of the fields, respectively. People complained of birds affecting an additional 4% of the fields, and deer, 3%.

Some of the fields were harvested too late, or weeded inadequately (3% each); and on 1% of the fields low yields were blamed on bad seeds. Bad soil was considered a culprit on 6% of the fields. Several of the most common problems were relatively minor this year: Only 4% of the fields suffered from labour shortages; 7% of the fields were flooded; and 8% suffered water shortage.

In 1981, an unusually large percentage of the people reported good yields (over 34%), with another 46% reporting sufficient yields. Mean yields rose a bit to 1,215 kg/ha per field.

1982 - The Year of Fire

In 1982, 92% of the sample families (n=69) had only one field, and 8% had two. 79% of the fields were in old growth, with 6% each in the other three major types. Paddy rice was planted in 3% of the fields. Ironically, the number of fields cut from hilly areas (most susceptible to drought) was still higher this year (81%), and the percentage of fields cut in floodplain areas was the lowest encountered during the study (3%). Mixed topography accounted for 16% of the fields.

Within this data set, field size, 3 ha, was only surpassed in 1972, during the previous drought .7 Distance to fields was just under six kilometers. The 1982 drought is welldocumented. Whitmore (1990: 117) reports that between July 1982 and April 1983 (the rice growing cycle) East Kalimantan received only 32% of its usual rainfall. In the Long Segar area, 97% of the fields were reported to be negatively affected by the drought. The effects of the drought were so bad that the only other agricultural problems mentioned were rats on 3% of the fields, worms on 2%, and a male labour shortage on 1%.

Obviously, this was a very bad year, second only to 1972. Ninety-two percent of the families reported insufficient yields for subsistence needs. Mean rice yields plummeted to an abysmal 143 kg/ha. The considerably larger area of logged over forest in the 1980's may have a role in the devastating fires that raged in 1983 but not in 1973.

1983

The number of families with two fields jumped to 10% this year, with the remainder having only one. Just as happened after the drought ten years earlier, far fewer people were able to make fields in old growth: 42%. Old secondary forest was the forest type of choice for 27% of the fields, the previous year's ricefield for 21%, and young secondary was least popular with 7% of the fields. Fields cut in 1983 showed a topographical pattern similar to that shown the previous year: 78% in upland, 7% in lowland, and 15% in mixed topography. Mean field sizes dropped considerably, to 1.9 ha per field, and distance to fields passed six kilometers, on average.

As in the previous decade, rats were a major problem immediately following the drought: 34% of the fields were affected. Pigs were also a significant problem on 21% of the fields. Monkeys and birds affected a few fields (2% and 5% respectively). Bad soil was considered a significant problem on 5% of the fields. Empty seedpods or small clusters of grain and inadequate weeding were each a problem on 3%. Women were in short supply on 7% of the fields; and 1% of the fields yielded significantly less for the owners because of "help" from the needy. A shortage of rain affected 8% of the fields, and flooding was a problem on 4%. Although 1983 was deemed considerably better than 1982, a third of the families still considered their rice yields insufficient for subsistence. Mean yields per field were back up to normal, with 1,142 kg/ha.

1984

Of the 74 families queried about 1984, 89% had only one field; 11% had two. The percentage of fields cut from old growth remained low (53%), but the number of old fields planted returned to normal (6%). Old secondary forest remained popular, with 30% of the fields; and young secondary was chosen for 10% of the fields. This year the percentage of hilly fields dropped slightly as compared to lowland fields (74% to 14%, respectively), with mixed topography remaining fairly constant at 12%. Field size began to work its way up, averaging 2.2 ha, and average distance to field remained close to six kilometers.

The rat problem decreased in 1984, still affecting 18% of the fields, but pigs dramatically increased-reported by farmers on 22% of the fields. Birds (on 5% of the fields), monkeys (2%), and deer (I%) were minor problems. Farmers complained of bad soil on 5% of the fields. Labour was an even more significant constraint, with families reporting a shortage of men on 5% of the fields, women on 6%, and both on 5%. Drought was only a problem on 11% of the fields, with 2% being flooded. By 1984, things were almost back to normal, with slightly over a quarter of the families reporting insufficient rice yields for their subsistence needs. Mean yields rose again, to 1,278 kg/ha.

1985

Of the 74 families interviewed regarding land use in 1985, 82% had one field and 18% had two. Although old growth accounted for 59% of the 81 fields, and old secondary forest was next most common with 18% of the fields, more fields were made

in young secondary than ever before: 17%. Only 3% were made in old ricefields. Hilly topography retained its position of favor, accounting for 78% of the fields, with mixed topography characterizing 15%, and lowlands only 7% of the fields. Average number of hectares per field rose to above 2.2, and average distance to fields again topped six kilometers.

Water problems were evenly distributed, with 6% of the fields having a shortage, and 6% suffering flooding. Pigs were the most severe animal pest, with 33% of the fields affected, and rats were a distant second (13%). Monkeys and birds were minor problems, attacking 7% and 3%, respectively. Locusts were the most significant insect pest, affecting 5% of the fields, with worms and ngeruseng causing problems on 1% each. Farmers complained of bad soil on 7% of the fields, perhaps related to the high percentage of young secondary forest used this year. Other agricultural problems included incomplete field burning on 3% of the fields, failure of first planting (2%), subnormal grain development (2%), late or incomplete harvests (8%), and inadequate weeding (1%). Labour was a fairly significant problem this year. Illness created problems on 3% of the fields, as did a shortage of males (6%), a shortage of females (3%), or a shortage of both (1%). Other work reduced labour availability on 1 % of the fields and the size of the field proved a problem on another 1 %.

Still only slightly over a fifth of the families reported inadequate yields, and 31% reported "good" yields. Mean yields were good at 1,229 kg./ha.

1986

By 1986, most of the people who were moving away had already done so. Long Segar Catholics had made a joint decision to stay, as the Church (with outside funds) was planning to construct a new building for them. Eighty-nine percent of Long Segar's families had only one field in 1986, and 11 % had two. Mean field size was 2.25 ha. There was still sufficient old growth for 70% of the fields to be cut from this kind of forest (plus 1 % from a mixture of old growth and old secondary forest). Old and young secondary forest accounted for the remaining 16% and: 13% of the fields, respectively. Hilly fields predominated (70%), whereas a quarter of the fields were characterized by mixed topography. Only 5% were in the lowlands. People typically cleared fields of two and a quarter hectares, almost 6.8 kilometers away.

Flooding affected 11 % of the fields, and drought only 4%. Pigs were the worst animal pest, affecting 24% of the fields. Rats (on 14% of the fields), birds (5%), and monkeys (4%) caused additional damage. Worms (on 4% of fields), and locusts (2%) were minor irritants as well as ngeruseng, kutip, and various combinations of insects (each accounting for an additional 1%). Only 1 % of the fields were characterized as having bad soil. Late and incomplete harvests accounted for problems on 11% of the fields. Inadequate weeding (4%), incomplete field bums (2%), bad seeds (1%), and lodging (1%) were other minor problems. Illness adversely affected yields on 2% of the fields, and absences of men and of women affected 4% of the fields, respectively. Non-agricultural work competed with labour needs on one additional field (1%); and one family misjudged the size of field they could handle.

In 1986, a quarter of the families reported having insufficient rice for their needs, with 29% reporting good yields. Average yields dropped slightly to 1,156 kg/ha.

1987

By 1987, the percentage of two field families had risen to 15%, but average field size had gone down to 1.93 hectares. The community cleared 179 hectares that year. Only 56% of the forest cleared was old growth, with 22% old secondary and 18% young secondary. Old ricefields were re-used for 2% of the fields. The largest percentage of fields since 1979 was in the lowlands: 14%. Mixed topography accounted for 27%, and hilly areas for 59% of the fields. Consistent with the higher percentage of lowland cleared, there was a higher than usual percentage of flooded fields: 17%. Fields suffering from a shortage of water amounted to 12%.

Pigs were a pretty bad problem this year, adversely affecting 37% of the fields, with rats damaging 9%. Smaller problems included monkeys (6%), deer (4%), and birds (2%). Locusts, kutip and worms only troubled 1 % of the fields each. Soil was mentioned as a problem on less than 6% of the fields, and one farmer complained of too little available land (1%). Other minor problems included one crop with bad seeds (1%), two with incomplete field burning (2%), and one field on which the first planting died (1%). Labour problems were not too bad this year, with only 5% of the fields adversely affected by a man's unavailability, 4% by a woman's, and 2% by conflicting work needs.

With regard to adequacy of rice yields for subsistence, 54% reported having enough, and 15% reported good yields; 31% did not feel they had enough for their subsistence needs. Average yields were 1,096 kg/ha.

1988

In 1988, Long Segar's 89 families cleared 202 hectares of forest, for 103 fields. Eighty-four percent had one ricefield and 16% had two fields. The pattern of the 80's continued, with the popularity of forest type increasing with the age of the forest. Old growth was cut in 65% of the cases, old secondary in 19%, and young secondary in 15%, with 1% in mixed old growth/old secondary. Topographical choices continued as they had for all but one year in the 80's, with the hills most popular (65%), mixed second (25%), and lowlands least, with 10%.

Water problems were more significant than usual this year, with 7% of the fields affected by flooding, and 6% affected by short-term drought. Animal pests posed a still greater problem, with 43% of the fields reported to be attacked by pigs. Rats attacked 9% of the fields, monkeys, birds and deer, each 3%. Only 2% of the fields were attacked by insects (locusts and worms). Families complained of poor soil on 4% of the fields, and an inability to clear enough land for 2% of the fields. More than 20% of the fields were adversely affected by incomplete field burning, suggesting higher than usual rainfall during the dry season. Lodging and inadequate weeding affected 3% of the fields, each; one family harvested too late, and another made their field too late (1% each). On 5% of the fields a shortage of male labour was reported; and on 4% a shortage of female labour.

This was a reasonably good year, with 20% of the families reporting good yields, 57% reporting enough; 23% felt they did not have enough for their needs. Average yields were 1,361 kg/ha.

1989

The amount of forest cleared in 1989 jumped to 278 hectares, and average distance rose to nearly seven kilometers. The percentage of families with two fields rose considerably, to 23%. Forest use and topography were almost identical to the previous year, with 66% in old growth, 20% in old secondary forest, and 14% in young secondary. Hills accounted for 67% of the fields, mixed for 23%, and lowlands for 10%.

Flooding affected 5% of the fields, and water shortage, 6%. Pigs were again the biggest animal pest, disturbing 36% of the fields. Rats followed, attacking more than 8% of the fields. Deer, birds and monkeys were minor problems affecting 3%, 2%, and 1%, respectively. Insects were not significant problems in 1989. Njau alang and locusts affected 2% of the fields, each. Ngeruseng attacked 1%. There were a variety of minor problems: 5% of the fields were reported to suffer from poor soil. Too many weeds were a problem on 3 % of the fields. Two percent (each) planted too late, harvested too late, or had incomplete burns. One family was unable to complete their harvest, and another complained of low yields of grain on the individual rice stalks (1%, each). Labour problems adversely affected 8% of the fields (3% had too few-men; 4% too few women; and 1 % too few of both).

This year was unusually good, with an average yield per hectare of 1,495 kg. Forty three percent of the people reported good yields, 46% reported adequate yields. Only 11% felt they did not have enough rice for the year.

1990

During the last year of this study, 303 hectares were cleared for ricefields, by 98 families. The percentage with two fields went down again, to 16%. The forest use pattern again closely followed that of the year before (66%, 19%, and 13%, for old growth, old secondary, and young secondary forest, respectively). The hills were the topography of choice in 71 % of the fields, with mixed topography in 21 %, and lowlands in 8%.

Drought resurfaced as an important problem affecting 74% of the fields." No flooding was reported. Rats were the biggest animal pest, affecting 16% of the fields. Minor problems resulted from deer (4%), monkeys and birds (3% each). Locusts invaded 10% of the fields, worms, 6%, kutip, 3% and njau slang, 1%. Ngeruseng occurred on 4% of the fields. A mixture of insects and diseases affected 7% of the fields. Poor yielding rice stalks were reported on 11 % of the fields. Inability to deal with the abundance of weeds was a problem on 7% of the fields. One family reported a poor field burn; another reported poor soil as a problem. A shortage of available females was the major labour problem reported, affecting 5% of the fields, followed by a shortage of both sexes (3%). Three percent of the fields had conflicting labour needs that drew people away from the ricefield; and another 2% had labour shortages due to illness.

This final year was rather poor, agriculturally, with only 7% reporting good yields, 46% reporting sufficient, and 45% predicting inadequate yields for subsistence. The average yield was only 889 kg/ha.


Previous PageTop Of PageNext Page