Assessing the Economic Benefits of an Early Wet
Season Rice Crop in Cambodia’s Rainfed Lowlands
S. Cheaa,b, R.A. Crambb,*, H.J. Nesbitta, S. Fukaib and P.G. Coxc
Abstract
New innovations are desperately needed to improve the productivity of
rainfed-lowland rice-based farming systems in Cambodia. In this ecosystem, most
farmers grow a single rice crop on infertile soil under unfavourable climatic
conditions. With poor yields, farmers normally experience food shortages for at least
two to five months before the next crop is harvested. After modern photoperiodinsensitive and short-duration rice varieties such as IR66 became available, farmers in
some areas have been able to grow an additional (early wet season or EWS) rice crop
at the start of the rainy season to reduce these frequent food shortages. To examine the
effectiveness of this form of double cropping, a case study was conducted in a typical
Cambodian rainfed-lowland village. Five farm families who only grow a single rice
crop a year, and five who double-crop rice, were randomly selected to interview about
the costs and returns of rice cultivation, using a 60-question survey. The results
indicate that, with higher inputs, early wet season rice can produce a better yield than
the wet season crop. Double-cropping rice can produce food for consumption all the
year round and may earn some additional cash. Significant capital investment is
needed to install a tubewell and pump in order to reduce the risk of yield loss resulting
from unpredictable rainfall during the early wet season. However, the returns to this
investment are high. The economic advantages of EWS rice, however, depend on the
way in which inputs (especially family labour) are costed.
Keywords: agricultural development, research planning, rice double cropping
Introduction
The cultivation of a single rice crop in the wet season (WS) is the most
common practice in Cambodian rainfed-lowland agro-ecosystems even though the
soil may be favourable for some non-rice crops which can generate better incomes
(Chea et al., 2001). Wet season rice currently covers 88% of the rice-growing area of
Cambodia, 83% of which is in the rainfed lowlands (MAFF, 2000). The wet season is
too short to grow more than one long-duration rice crop per season even where
supplementary water sources are available. Traditional photoperiod-sensitive varieties
are well adapted to this agro-ecosystem.
Farmers are generally satisfied with traditional late-maturing rice varieties.
However, because of their photoperiod sensitivity, these varieties can be cultivated
only during the wet season. Lando and Mak (1994ab) confirm that traditional varieties
are popular with Cambodian farmers because of their good grain qualities and
adaptability to specific biotic stresses. Unfortunately, some traditional varieties grown
a
Cambodian-IRRI-Australian Project, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld. 4072, Australia
c
Catholic Relief Services, Jl. Wijaya I No. 35, Kebayoran Baru, Jakarta, Indonesia
*Email of corresponding author: R.Cramb@mailbox.uq.oz.au
b
1
by farmers are mostly low yielding, particularly when cultivated on very acid soil
types in the absence of applied fertilizer (CIAP, 1998).
Cambodian farmers growing a single crop of rice using traditional methods
rarely have surplus grain for sale and often suffer from food shortages during the year
(CIAP, 1999). There is negligible potential for these farmers to increase their farm
area and new innovations are badly needed to increase production. Double cropping is
one option that should be considered. Different cropping patterns include: rice
followed by non-rice crops, rice after non-rice crops, non-rice crops and non-rice
crops or two rice crops per year.
An increasing area of modern rice varieties is grown under irrigation in the dry
season. In 2000, about 253,000 ha of dry season rice were grown (MAFF, 2000) - a
doubling of the area over the past decade. Further expansion is limited by a lack of
accessible water to irrigate the crop fully. Cultivation of an early wet season (EWS)
rice crop, on the other hand, requires only a small amount of water to supplement
early rains. This water can come from shallow tubewells or water conserved on-farm
in canals and ponds.
This paper examines the contribution of double-cropping rice to the farm
household economy. It presents the results of a survey to compare the costs and
returns of both single and double cropping rice in the Cambodian rainfed lowlands.
The study focuses on the cultivation of an EWS rice crop followed by a WS crop.
Modern photoperiod-insensitive short-duration rice varieties are cultivated in the
EWS. Traditional photoperiod-sensitive long-duration varieties are generally grown in
the WS. The benefits of these cropping patterns are compared.
Study Area
The case study was conducted in Tungke Village, Snao Commune, Prey
Kabas District, Takeo Province. The village is about 10 km from Highway 2, 60 km
south of Phnom Penh. The road linking the village to the highway is in poor
condition. This is a constraint for transporting products to and from markets. The
absence of a nearby river means that most farming land in the area depends entirely
on rainfall. The annual rainfall ranges from 1,250 mm to 1,750 mm. Although
droughts are frequently encountered, rice remains the principal agricultural output of
the province. Farmers in Tungke Village have few canals or ditches in which to store
supplementary water for cropping. However, they do possess some shallow tubewells.
There are more than 170 families in the village, which is one of five villages
of Snao Commune. Every family has rights to some farming land, the area of which
varies from 0.5 ha to 1.5 ha of favourable land and 1-2 ha of unfavourable land. The
unfavourable land floods nearly every year because a road was recently built nearby
and left the fields prone to flooding. The landholding varies in size according to the
size of the farm household. This is a result of the land reallocation at the end of the
collective farming period in 1984. As in other nearby villages, almost all the
population in Tungke earns a living through farming. Rice production generates the
highest income for most families. Vegetables, beans, fishing and livestock are other
important sources of income. Besides farm work, some villagers make money from
off-farm activities such as weaving, palm sugar production, wage labouring and small
trading within or outside the village. Approximately 70-80% of families in Tungke
cultivate two rice crops annually in some part of their farms.
2
Methodology
Tungke Village was selected for the case study because it is located in an area
where most villages are considered to be quite homogeneous in terms of land
condition (field, soil type and irrigation source), cropping pattern, population and
farming activities. Double-cropping rice is popular in the district. The initial small
sample reported here will be expanded in a larger study to be conducted later.
In the first step, we went to see the head of the village and asked permission to
interview villagers. The purposes of the study were clearly explained and general
information was requested on the number of families, landholdings, farming activities
and other off-farm activities in the village. With cooperation and support from the
head of the village and his deputy, ten farm families – five families undertaking
double cropping (both EWS and WS rice) and another five who only do single
cropping (only WS rice) were randomly selected from a list of the more than 170
Tungke families. However, two of the ten selected families were replaced by their
neighbours after the first interview because they could not remember sufficient
information.
Several days before the interview, the selected farmers were visited to solicit
their assistance, and to make an appointment for the interview. A map of the village
noting the location of the selected farmers’ residences and their field layouts was
drawn with the assistance of the village head and the deputy. The map of the field
layout was used to find the selected farmers and monitor their fields without
repeatedly disturbing the village head. Several visits to the village were necessary
during each season to discuss different farming activities soon after they had been
undertaken and because the farmers were often busy.
A questionnaire was developed with 60, mostly open-ended, questions about
the household, farming practices, farming inputs and outputs, and farmers’ decisionmaking processes. The interview was divided into modules – the first module for the
EWS rice crop and the second for the WS crop. The same questions were asked of
single- and double-cropping farmers except for questions about decision-making
processes since the two groups had made a different decision.
The first phase of interviews with the five double-cropping rice farmers was
after the harvest of the EWS crop when all the data were available. The questionnaire
was completed at a single meeting. Almost two hours were needed to complete the
interview, but during this time we also had a chat, smoked a cigarette or drank a cup
of tea. These activities were included because they helped to relax the interviewees
and develop rapport with the interviewer. The interviews provided information about
the dates of land preparation, planting, weeding, fertilizer application and harvest, the
rates of fertilizer used, and the money spent on those inputs. Although the
questionnaire was completed during the first interview, additional visits were made at
least once a week for the following two months to collect missing data or to check
data we were unsure about.
The second phase of interviews was conducted prior to, and throughout the
cultivation for the WS crop. Data were collected through visiting all ten farmers
(double- and single-crop families) once a fortnight. This process was time-consuming
and relatively expensive but was more effective and accurate than the single-visit
technique (after harvest) because all the information was still fresh in farmers’
memories, e.g., about the number of ploughings, the cost of wage labour, fertilizer
3
prices, weeding dates and, especially, crop yields. Every time we visited farmers, we
took the opportunity to monitor their fields and check on crop growth.
In addition, field measurements were conducted when either the farm owners
or the village head were unsure of the field size. Except for recently purchased sites,
land statistics were mostly recorded by the village head because he was involved in
the 1984 land reallocation.
Costs and returns were calculated using field size, inputs and yields (converted
into tons per hectare) and market prices. All costs of inputs were based on market
prices even though farmers did not spend their own money for items such as labour,
seed and cow manure.
Three categories of inputs were distinguished. Actual monetary expenses
included purchased chemical fertilizer, insecticides, herbicides, fuel and harvesting
contract costs. Non-labour inputs supplied by the farm household included seed, cow
manure and threshing costs (usually wage labours prefer to be paid in kind). Family
labour costs included those used for land preparation, planting, fertiliser application,
weeding, harvesting, threshing and post-harvest work.
Different gross margins (total revenue minus variable costs, or GM) were
calculated based on different assumptions about how these costs should be treated:
GM1 was measured as Gross Income (GI) minus actual money expenses; GM2 was
derived from GM1 by subtracting the cost of non-labour inputs using shadow prices
based on local market prices; and GM3 was calculated by including all family labour
costs, i.e., GI minus total variable costs using shadow prices for all non-marketed
inputs.
The returns to investment in tubewells and pumps was also analysed because
four of five EWS rice farmers depended on this source of irrigation. A discounted
cash flow analysis was undertaken over a ten-year planning horizon. Investment costs
were assumed to occur in Year 0, resulting in a steady stream of annual net benefits
from Years 1 to 10, based on the average gain in GM3 obtained by double-cropping
farmers relative to single-cropping farmers. The internal rate of return (IRR) was
calculated, with varying assumptions about field size and the opportunity cost of
family labour.
Results
Grain yields for the EWS crop ranged from 3.1 to 3.6 t ha-1. One farmer, who
did not irrigate, produced less than 2 t ha-1 (Table 1). The average yield of the five
farmers was 3.2 t ha-1 (Table 1). Most farmers cultivated IR66 and used tube-wells for
supplementary irrigation. Two of the five farmers practised both direct seeding and
transplanting. The latter produced slightly higher yields. In general, non-labour inputs
and family labour costs were much larger than the monetary expenses for both
cultivation methods if costed at market prices (Table 2).
The GI of the EWS rice varied between US$ 160 and almost US$ 400 ha-1
(Table 1). GM1 and GM2 varied, but remained positive. GM3 was substantially less
and three of the five families recorded a negative GM3. One farmer made a very good
net return from EWS rice production, achieving a GM3 of US$ 211 ha-1 (Table 1).
Only two of the five families practised both transplanting and direct-seeding for the
EWS rice but one farmer obtained a positive GM3 with higher yield (3.6 t ha-1) and
another obtained a negative GM3 with lower yield (1.6 t ha-1). Direct-seeding was
cultivated over larger fields than transplanting method for both households (Table 1).
4
Photoperiod-sensitive long-duration traditional rice varieties were grown as
the WS crop, and all crops were transplanted. The WS rice yields of 10 farms (singleand double-cropping) ranged from just below 2 t ha-1 to just above 3 t ha-1 (Table 3).
The average yield between the single-cropping and double-cropping farmers was very
similar : 2.4 against 2.6 t ha-1 (Table 3). These were above average yields for the WS
crop of past years but close to the average for this village’s production in 2000.
Family labour inputs were again the largest cost item (valued at market prices)
followed by cash expenses and non-labour inputs (Table 4). The GI of WS rice was
between US$ 160 ha-1 and almost US$ 300 ha-1. GM1 and GM2 were not much
different from GI because the cash and non-labour input costs were small. The GM3
of the WS crop was negative for two households (numbers 6 and 7) (Table 3).
The results indicate that, on the same land, EWS rice generally produced
higher yields than the WS crop. HYVs cultivated in the EWS are generally known to
respond to higher inputs. In addition, EWS crops receive more insolation because they
are grown before the start of the main rains, increasing the potential for higher yields.
However, purchased inputs to achieve this increased yield were almost double. Insect
pests or diseases were not a severe problem during either cropping cycle. Farmers
noticed that a few number of rice plants planted in the EWS were slightly damaged by
insects, rice bug for example.
The gross margin (GM1 and GM2) was positive with good returns for both the
EWS and WS crops, but when the total variable costs were deducted (GM3), the
returns were much lower. Farmer 2, with less than a two-ton yield, had a negative
gross margin. Farmers 4 and 5, with more than three-ton yields of EWS crops, also
received a negative gross margin since more inputs were invested, particularly cow
manure (Table 1&2).
EWS rice cost more than WS rice since the former incurred irrigation costs
(Figure 1). If inputs are separated into three categories, family labour of the EWS rice
crop was ranked the most costly (US$ 74-176 ha-1), then non-labour inputs (US$ 57145 ha-1) and lastly, cash expenses (US$ 23-99 ha-1) (Table 2). The inputs of family
labour invested in EWS rice production were broadly different between direct-seeded
and transplanted crops (Table 2). The labour requirement for uprooting and
transplanting is high compared with other activities during the crop cycle. The WS
rice production family labour inputs were also high, but expenditure on non-labour
inputs and purchased inputs were similar. The double-cropping farmers (households 1
to 5) had lower costs during the WS because no further cow manure was applied, the
second crop consuming only residual fertilizer (Table 4).
Cow manure was the main non-labour cost if valued at market prices.
Nonetheless, farmers were able to collect this nutrient source from their home yards
and rice fields. Family labour was also costly if it was calculated at local wage rates.
In practice, farmers performed the activities on their own or through labour exchange.
Other resources provided by the farm household, namely land and farming tools, were
not included in costs.
Considering the combined results for the two seasons (EWS and WS), the total
variable costs differed widely between single-cropping and double-cropping farmers.
The costs of double-cropping farmers ranged from above US$ 300 to over US$ 500
while single-cropping farmers spent mostly under US$ 200 for the total production
(Figure 1). However, the results also show that all double-cropping farmers obtained
positive GM3 after cultivating two rice crops within one year (Figure 2). Two of the
five single-cropping farmers received negative GM3. The average gross margin of the
double-cropping farmers was higher than that for the single-cropping farmers. The
5
former obtained close to US$ 100, while the latter averaged around US$ 30 (as shown
by the horizontal lines in Figure 2).
With regard to the return to investment in tubewells and pumps, the results
indicate that the internal rate of return (IRR) is relatively high, even compared with
the high cost of borrowed funds (though most farmers have used their own funds to
invest in tubewells and pumps). However, the IRR depends on two factors, field size
and the valuation of family labour. With family labour valued at the market wage, the
IRR is only 18% for a field size of 0.5 ha but rises to over 70% for fields of 1.5 ha or
more (Table 7). With family labour valued at half the market wage, the IRR for a 0.5
ha field improves to 28%, and for a 1.5 ha field, to 98%.
Discussion
Although some farmers received a negative GM3 for their additional EWS
crop, this does not necessarily mean they were making a loss. It means that EWS rice
(using modern varieties and high inputs) may not provide returns to labour that match
local wage rates. However, local wage rates may be substantially higher than the
opportunity cost of labour (except at certain key times in the cropping calendar)
because there is a chronic shortage of paid employment possibilities locally. GM1,
which reflects farmers’ ‘bottom line’ because it is the result of investing their own
cash, showed consistently positive returns (Tables 1& 3). Moreover, none of the
double-cropping farmers obtained a negative GM3 for their second crop, while two
single-cropping farmers had negative GM3 (Table 3).
A range of benefits encourage farmers to grow two rice crops annually (EWS
and WS rice). The double-cropping farmers said that additional rice provides food
security for at least three months before harvesting the WS crop. Before cultivating
EWS rice, most farmers interviewed had experienced food shortages during the WS
pre-harvest period. The EWS rice may also be considered to be a low cost crop
(compared with non-rice crops) because the soil does not have to be formed into beds
to grow upland crops. Another benefit of EWS rice is that it provides a source of seed
for the coming year, i.e., there is seed available for the next dry season crop. This
overcomes a problem with IR66, the seed of which exhibits a rapid drop in
germination percentage if stored in the traditional way for one year. This has been
reported previously by Mak (2001) and Cox et al. (2001): EWS rice helped to secure
the DS rice crop where the potential gains were substantial. Seed of IR66 can thus
fetch a premium price in local markets.
The products of EWS rice contribute not only to human food consumption but
also to the amount of animal fodder. EWS rice straw may be fed to cattle for a couple
of months during the wet season when it is hard for farmers to collect fresh grass.
Land of either single- or double-crop farmers is commonly ploughed during the first
rainfall in April or May to suppress weed growth. By this time, the stubble is usually
bleached of all nutrients and is not a good source of animal feed. Fresh rice straw is a
good quality fodder which keeps draught animals strong and healthy, according to a
farmer in the study village.
There was not a large difference in WS grain yield between single-crop and
double-crop farmers, even when cow manure was only applied to the first crop. This
suggests that the single application of cow manure was effective for cultivating both
EWS and WS rice. Moreover, the cultivation of two rice crops may not rapidly
deplete soil fertility if soil nutrients have been properly managed. Except household
number one, all double-cropping farmers cultivated the WS rice over greater areas
6
than the EWS rice because each farmer occupied small plots of land in different
locations (Table 1&3). Therefore, one tubewell can support only one plot of field.
Further, double-cropping systems have just been started few years in this village. All
double croppers planned to expand their EWS rice when water is available.
Rice double-cropping required higher investment than single-cropping. The
average of monetary cost of double-cropping (i.e., for the whole year’s production)
was twice that of the single-cropping system (Table 6). But the total variable costs
was not much different. However, the whole-year gross income of the former was
generally higher than the latter (Table 5). Though double-cropping farmers need
higher investment of inputs and three of them earned negative GM3 for the additional
EWS rice crop, all the five farmers obtained positive annual gross margins (the
accumulation of gross margins of both EWS and WS crops) which indicates that
double-cropping was worthwhile. In contrast, two of the five single-cropping farmers
obtained negative gross margins over the same annual period (Table 5). However, as
noted above, even a negative annual gross margin does not necessarily indicate that
these farmers were making a loss, given that the cost of family labour was probably
overestimated.
Although the advantages of double cropping were obvious, a small proportion
(around 17 %) of families in Tungke Village continued to cultivate only a single crop
of rice in the WS. The factors that discouraged farmers from adopting double
cropping were: a lack of supplementary irrigation; a lack of labour and capital; and
the opportunity of higher paid jobs outside the village.
Four of the five double-cropping farmers had access to a reliable irrigation
source from underground water, while the other farmer depended on rainfall and
pumping water from a canal next to his fields. This suggests that access to tube-wells
and pumps has been the key factor in growing EWS rice within the village. Farmers
without access to a tube-well and pump may still be able to cultivate two crops a year
(e.g. family number 2), but there is a high probability of poor yields or complete crop
loss.
Labour availability is a serious constraint to double-cropping rice because
farmers in Tungke depended entirely on traditional equipment and the availability of
numerous labourers. Thirty to forty person-days are needed to transplant a hectare of
land. As the payment for labour was the most expensive of the three categories of
inputs (Tables 2&4), when calculated using the market wage rate, most farmers would
find it uneconomical to grow rice using hired labour. Therefore, it may not be
worthwhile for farmers to attempt to cultivate the additional EWS crop unless enough
family labour is available for exchange with other families.
The total variable costs of EWS rice production were considerably higher than
those for the WS crop. For higher yields from the EWS rice, farmers needed more
working capital with which to purchase chemical fertilizers, fuel for pumps, and
insecticides. Capital investment was also required to install a tube-well and buy a
pump. This indicates that a lack of financial resources is another constraint which
hampers single-crop farmers from attempting to double-crop.
Upton (1996) states that the seasonal needs of farming – the consequences of
crop failure, sickness within the family, or unexpected social commitments – may be
solved by accessing short-term credit. Farmers in Tungke can borrow money from a
credit scheme run by ACLEDA (Association of Cambodian Local Economic
Development Agencies) or from village moneylenders. ACLEDA lends money to
individual farmers or groups of farmers at the same interest rate of 4 per cent per
month. Using this scheme, the debt has to be cleared within ten months. Borrowers
7
need to illustrate their ability to clear debt by depositing valuable documents such as
land title certificates. If a debtor is one day late in paying off the loan, he/she will be
fined 1% of the total loan and the property may eventually be confiscated. According
to the farmers we interviewed in the village, nobody took a loan from that credit
scheme since the interest rate was too high to be affordable for farming. The farmers
pointed out that it would be hard to repay a loan if it was invested in a tube-well and
pump.
Moneylenders within the village are an additional source of funds. Local
moneylenders are more accessible than ACLEDA, require no documentation, and
provide credit quickly. However, their interest rates were much higher and loans were
not taken out to purchase irrigation equipment.
In some circumstances, it may not be a good option for farmers to take out a
loan to invest in their rice cultivation because of not only the frequent change in
interest rate but also in weather. Hardaker et al. (1997) point out that the use of
borrowed funds to finance farm operations involves financial risk because of the
unpredictable nature of the weather and the possibility of an unexpected rise in
interest rates. These risks discourage farmers in Tungke from borrowing money to
invest in rice growing, as they frequently suffer from drought, floods, and pest
outbreaks.
According to the discounted cash flow analysis of the investment in a tubewell
and pump for practising rice double-cropping, the IRR was low with the cultivation of
only 0.5 ha of rice land. However, investment in a tubewell and pump for doublecropping on a 1.0 ha rice field produced an IRR of almost 50 per cent, even with
family labour costed at the full market wage. Therefore, for those who owned a field
of 1 ha or larger, it was worthwhile to take out a loan to install a tubewell and pump,
even if the interest rate was as high as 4 per cent per month. Farmers who owned land
up to 3 ha would be able to pay back the borrowed funds (around US$ 300) for
purchasing a tubewell and pump after two years of rice double-cropping, with family
labour included in costs, and after only one year if family labour costs are not
included. Borrowed funds which are well used in farming, like the investment in a
tubewell and pump for rice double-cropping, do not only bring down financial risks,
but also increase farm returns but a sound financial institution for farmer loan is
needed to support the village.
Off-farm jobs which discourage single-crop farmers from double-cropping
include work such as drivers, garment factory workers, or weavers. One farmer was
also a teacher and another was a technician who helped repair radios, cassette players
and amplifiers. Some double-crop farmers also found some non-farm employment
within the village or in local towns. Income from these jobs was used to buy rice,
meat, fish and vegetables during the months when food was short and to pay for other
expenses such as healthcare, clothes and school materials. These farmers have been
able to develop sustainable livelihoods by combining farming and off-farm activities.
Conclusion
The shift from growing a single WS rice crop to a double-cropping system
with EWS rice encounters several constraints: access to supplementary irrigation
(underground water and on-farm reserves); a lack of good seed of short-duration
photoperiod-insensitive rice varieties (IR66); problems maintaining the germination
percentage of seed; a shortage of labour; and a shortage of cash with which to
purchase inputs and invest in irrigation equipment. Farmers may also face pest
8
problems while growing a small area of EWS rice in the rainfed lowlands. EWS rice
should be seen as part of a farming system which includes DS rice. Without
supplementary irrigation of some sort, it is a risky crop to grow as a crop in isolation.
In the village, those who grew DS rice did not grow EWS rice due to cropping
calendar. The practice of DS rice was mostly replaced by the EWS rice in recently.
Possible drawbacks of intensification over the long-term include the effect of
crop intensification on soil fertility, pest outbreaks (including rats), excessive demand
on scarce labour, increased transport costs, and a possible depression of the market
price when a large amount of grain is released onto the market at the same time.
The disadvantages are currently outweighed by the advantages of the doublecropping system in Tungke and other villages in Cambodia where similar conditions
prevail. Food security is a priority in Cambodian households and this encourages
farmers to double crop. The positive gross margins indicate that double-cropping can
produce a good return. Moreover, the rice double-cropping system is a reliable source
of additional employment and income, given that off-farm job opportunities are
generally out of the village and not always available.
Whether it makes sense for farmers to attempt to double crop depends on their
access to resources – this includes both physical resources such as land and a source
of water, and capital resources such as a tube-well and a pump. Investment in a
tubewell and pump for practising rice double-cropping appears to be economically
jusitified for farmers with a field of over 1 ha. Adoption of EWS rice technology
opens up other technological options (such as direct seeding) and market options
(such as selling seed). Farmers may also derive financial benefits from growing
surplus additional rice. After milling, rice bran can be used to raise animals such as
pigs, chickens and ducks. Rice straw which is quite costly and hard to buy can be
stored for feeding to draught animals during the periods of forage shortage. Also, the
EWS rice harvest is a source of quality seed for the following dry season as part of a
larger farming system.
Acknowledgments
Financial support for this study was funded by the Australian Agency for
International Development (AusAID) through the Cambodia-IRRI-Australia Project
(CIAP). Support was also provided by the Cambodian Agricultural Research and
Development Institute (CARDI). The time and contributions of the farmers in the
village are also acknowledged.
References
Chea, S., Cramb, R., Nesbitt, H., Fukai, S., Chan, P., and Cox, P., 2001. “Crop
Intensification in Rice-Based Farming Systems in Cambodia”. In Fukai, S. and
Basnayake, J. ed. Increased Lowland Rice Production in the Mekong Region.
Proceedings of an International Workshop, Vientiane, Laos, 30 Oct-2 Nov,
2000. ACIAR Proceedings No. 101. pp. 52-59.
CIAP, 1998. Annual Research Report 1997. Cambodia-IRRI-Australia Project.
Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
CIAP, 1999. Annual Research Report 1998. Cambodia-IRRI-Australia Project.
Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
9
Cox, P., Mak, S., Jahn, G. and Not, Dana, 2001. “Impact of technologies on food
security and poverty alleviation in Cambodia: designing research processes.”
In S. Peng and B. Hardy (eds.), Rice Research for Food Security and Poverty
Alleviation, pp. 677-684. Los Baños, Philippines: International Rice Research
Institute.
Hardaker, J.B., Huirne, R.B.M. and Anderson, J.R., 1997. Coping with Risk in
Agriculture. Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences, UK.
Lando, R.P. and Mak, S., 1994a. Rainfed Lowland Rice in Cambodia: A Baseline
Survey. IRRI Research Paper Series No. 152. International Rice Research
Institute. Manila, Philippines. 20 p.
Lando, R.P. and Mak, S., 1994b. Cambodian Farmers’ Decision-making in the
Choice of Traditional Rainfed Lowland rice Varieties. IRRI Research Paper
Series, No. 154. International Rice Research Institute, Manila, Philippines.
MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries). 2000. Government Statistics,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Mak, S., 2001. “Continued Innovation in a Cambodian Rice-Based Farming System:
Farmers Testing and Recombination of New Elements”. Agricultural Systems.
Vol. No. 1-2, 69, pp. 137-149.
Upton, M., 1996. The Economics of Tropical Farming Systems. The University Press,
Cambridge, UK. p. 160, 247.
10
Table 1: Yields and returns for EWS rice production of five double-cropping households, 2000 a
Family
number
Transplanting
GI
GM1 GM2 GM3
------------USD ha-1-----------
Cultivated
area (ha)
Yield
t ha-1
1
0.1
3.6
382
358
214
2
0.1
1.9
162
127
3
0.8
3.7
387
4
0.6
3.5
5
0.5
3.1
Direct seeding
GI
GM1
GM2
GM3
------------USD ha-1----------------
Cultivated
area (ha)
Yield
t ha-1
39
0.3
3.6
376
305
174
59
55
-39
0.3
1.6
132
102
44
-30
341
299
211
-
-
-
-
-
-
364
265
120
-2
-
-
-
-
-
-
257
178
92
-12
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mean
0.4
3.2
310 254
156
39
0.3
2.6
254
204
109
GI = gross income; GM = gross margin; GM1 = GI minus actual monetary expenses; GM2 = GI minus
actual monetary expenses and non-labour input; GM3 = GI minus total variable costs (actual monetary
expenses, non-labour input and family labour input); exchange rate: US$ 1 = 3900 riel.
15
a
Table 2: Cost of inputs (USD ha-1) for EWS rice production of five double-cropping households, 2000
Family
Monetary costs
Non-labour inputs
Family labour inputs
Total variable costs
number
Direct
TransDirect
TransDirect
TransDirect
Transseeding planting
seeding planting
seeding
planting
seeding
planting
1
71
23
131
144
116
176
317
343
2
30
35
57
72
74
95
162
201
3
-
46
-
41
-
88
-
176
4
-
99
-
145
-
122
-
366
5
Mean
51
79
56
94
86
98
95
104
117
240
269
271
11
Table 3: Yields and returns for WS rice production (1-5 double cropping farmers and 6-10 single
cropping farmers), 2000
GI
GM1
GM2
GM3
Family
Cultivated area
Yield
--------------------------------USD ha-1-------------------------Number
(ha)
t ha-1
Double-cropping farmers
1
0.6
3.2
267
222
198
75
2
1.3
2.8
238
205
193
66
3
1.2
2.0
171
141
126
29
4
1.4
2.6
217
181
166
55
5
0.9
2.4
201
178
164
63
Mean
1.1
2.6
219
185
169
58
Single-cropping farmers
6
0.6
2.0
158
125
98
-18
7
0.6
3.0
232
196
145
15
8
0.7
1.9
155
125
96
-30
9
0.2
2.8
281
257
220
101
10
1.8
2.4
211
204
161
45
Mean
0.8
2.4
207
181
144
23
12
Table 4: Input costs for WS rice production (1-5 double-cropping farmers and 6-10 single cropping
farmers), 2000
Family Monetary costs
Non-labour inputs
Family labour inputs Total variable costs
number
-----------------------------------------------USD ha-1--------------------------------------------Double-cropping farmers
1
45
25
123
192
2
33
12
127
172
3
30
15
97
142
4
36
15
111
162
5
23
14
101
138
Mean
33
16
112
161
Single-cropping farmers
6
33
27
115
176
7
36
47
135
217
8
30
27
129
186
9
24
33
122
179
10
6
39
120
166
Mean
26
35
124
185
13
Table 5: Whole-year returns for double cropping farmers (1-5) and single cropping farmers (6-10),
2000
Family
GI
GM1
GM2
GM3
Number
-------------------------------------US$ ha-1----------------------------------Double-cropping farmers
1
307
261
188
56
2
208
175
155
35
3
257
220
195
100
4
253
198
141
29
5
217
174
129
31
Mean
248
206
162
50
Single-cropping farmers
6
158
125
98
-18
7
232
196
145
15
8
155
125
96
-30
9
281
257
220
101
10
211
204
161
45
Mean
207
181
144
23
14
Table 6: Whole-year costs* for double cropping farmers (1-5) and single cropping farmers (6-10), 2000
Family Monetary costs
Non-labour inputs
Family labour inputs Total variable costs
number
-----------------------------------------------USD ha-1--------------------------------------------Double-cropping farmers
1
46
71
132
249
2
33
24
117
174
3
36
26
93
156
4
55
55
114
224
5
44
41
102
187
Mean
43
43
112
198
Single-cropping farmers
6
33
27
115
176
7
36
47
135
217
8
30
27
129
186
9
24
33
122
179
10
6
39
120
166
Mean
26
35
124
185
*The sum of actual cultivated area of EWS and WS rice and divided by the total field size.
Table 7: Internal rate of return for investment in tubewell and pump, by field size and wage rate
Field size
Wage rate applied to family labour
0.5 ha
1 ha
1.5 ha
2 ha
2.5 ha
Market wage
18%
46%
71%
96%
121%
2/3 market wage
25%
58%
89%
119%
150%
1/2 market wage
28%
64%
98%
131%
165%
1/3 market wage
32%
70%
106%
142%
179%
3 ha
146%
180%
198%
215%
15
Figure 1: Whole-year production's total variable costs per hectare of doublecropping (1-5) and single-cropping (6-10)
600
USD per ha
500
400
300
200
100
0
1
300
2
3
4
5
6
Farmer family
7
8
9
10
Figure 2: Whole-year production's gross margins per hectare of doublecropping farmers (1-5) and single-cropping farmer (6-10)
250
Average lines
USD per ha
200
150
100
50
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-50
Farmer family
Contact information:
Sareth CHEA
MAgrSc Student
School of Natural Rural Systems Management
The University of Queensland
St Lucia Campus
Brisbane Qld 4072
Australia
Telephone (07) 5462 4275
International +61 7 5462 4275
Facsimile (07) 3365 9016
Email s804714@student.uq.edu.au
16
17