COMPARISON OF THE SYSTEM OF RICE INTENSIFICATIONWITH CONVENTIONAL PRACTICE IN DUNG TOUNG,

KAMPOT PROVINCE

By : Mr. CHUONG Sophal : Mr. SRAS Phanny

Supported by Cambodian Agricultural Research Fund (CARF)

Objectives

To study on the conventional

practices

To study the system of rice intensification

(SRI)

Comparison the System of Rice Intensification

(SRI) and Conventional Practice

Economic analysis

METHODOLOGY

STUDY AREA

STUDIED AREA

Study Area

•DURATION : 3 MONTHS, FROM DURATION : 3 MONTHS, FROM OCTOBER TO DECEMBER 2006OCTOBER TO DECEMBER 2006

Data collection is divided into two steps: Data collection is divided into two steps: 1-Primary data : interview with 1-Primary data : interview with farmers. 40 farmers. 40

farmers were selected:farmers were selected: -20 SRI farmers : 10 local variety used- -20 SRI farmers : 10 local variety used-

farmers and 10 modern variety used-farmersfarmers and 10 modern variety used-farmers-20 Non-SRI farmers: 10 local variety -20 Non-SRI farmers: 10 local variety

used-farmers and 10 modern variety used-farmers used-farmers and 10 modern variety used-farmers 2-Secondary data : collecting from libraries 2-Secondary data : collecting from libraries ..

Data collectionData collection

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE SYSTEM OF RICE INTENSIFICATION

WITH CONVENTIONAL PRACTICES

Soil preparation

152.2

5201.5

0

0

50

100

150

200

250

SRI NON SRI

Ho

urs

/ha

Technique of Cultivation

Quantity of Seed

50.6

19.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

SRI NON SRI

Kg

/ha

Seedling age

20.3

4

36.3

3

05

10152025303540

SRI NON SRI

Day

s

Spacing

29.85

23.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

SRI Non SRI

cm

Spacing

Weeding

93.2

6

69.2

5

0102030405060708090

100

SRI NON SRI

Ho

urs

/ha

Quantity of organic fertilizer

5.2

2.5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

SRI NON SRI

To

ns/h

a

Quantity of chemical fertilizer

75

112.

5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

SRI NON SRI

Kg

/ha

Results of the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) and Conventional Practice

Panicle length

26.6

25.9

25.5

26

26.5

27

SRI NON SRI

Cm

Number of plants per Hill

10.9

9.1

0

5

10

15

SRI NON SRI

plan

ts

Number of grains per panicle

217

200

190

200

210

220

SRI NON SRI

grai

ns

1000 seed-weight

20

21

22

23

24

SRI NON SRI

gram

s

Number of hills per 4 square metres

56.3 71

.3

0

20

40

60

80

SRI NON SRI

hill

Yield per hectare

4.12

3.65

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

4.2

SRI NON SRI

Tons

Yields

5.1

3.9

21

4.0

0

3.4

05

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

RiangcheyN = 5

6 kourN=8

RiangcheyN = 6

6 kour N = 8

NON SRI

T/h

a

SRI

Summary of analyzes by Summary of analyzes by ANOVAANOVA

SRI Rang SRI Rang CheyChey

Non-SRI Non-SRI Rang CheyRang Chey

SRI 6 KourSRI 6 Kour Non-SRI 6 Non-SRI 6 KourKour

YieldYield nsns nsns **** ****Grains per Grains per paniclepanicle

nsns nsns **** ****

1000-seed 1000-seed weightweight

**** **** **** ****

Tillers/hillTillers/hill **** **** **** ****

Panicle Panicle lengthlength

**** **** nsns nsns

Grains per panicle

234

.

219 222

196

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

Riangchey 6 kour Riangchey 6 kour

SRI NON SRI

gra

ins

Weight per 1000 grains

25.8

22.8

22.4

21.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Riangchey 6 kour Riangchey 6 kour

SRI NON SRI

gra

ms

Number of plants per hill

11.1

2

9.0

5

9.0

610.7

3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Riangchey 6 kour Riangchey 6 kour

SRI NON SRI

Panicle length

28.8

26.6

25.6

25.5

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Riangchey 6 kour Riangchey 6 kour

SRI NON SRI

cm

SRI Score

16.9

41.8

01020304050

SRI NON SRI

Yield

y = 30.694x + 3098.3

R2 = 0.1637

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Score

Correlation between SRI Score and Yield

Economical analysisEconomical analysis

ExpensesExpenses SRISRI Traditional Traditional technique technique

Chemical fertilizers (riel/ha)Chemical fertilizers (riel/ha) 82.26582.265 158.476158.476

Irrigation (riel/ha)Irrigation (riel/ha) 45.16045.160 25.95825.958

Labor (riel/ha)Labor (riel/ha) 66.57266.572 230.616230.616

TotalTotal 193.997193.997 415.050415.050

Table11: Expenditure on SRI and Conventional practice

DescriptionDescription SRISRI TraditionalTraditional DifferencesDifferences

IncomeIncome 1.695.9601.695.960 1.535.5201.535.520 160.440160.440

ExpensesExpenses 193.997193.997 415.050415.050 221.053221.053

ProfitsProfits 1.501.9631.501.963 1.120.4701.120.470 381.493381.493

Table12 : Expenses, Income, Profits of SRI and Conventional practice

ObservationObservation

- The yield of SRI is higher than The yield of SRI is higher than conventional practice. conventional practice.

- The SRI score is not strongly correlated The SRI score is not strongly correlated with the yield.with the yield.

- The SRI can get more profits than The SRI can get more profits than traditional practice in term of using family traditional practice in term of using family labor.labor.

RecommendationRecommendation

- Conduct more farmer-field trials for more insight Conduct more farmer-field trials for more insight in gross margin between conventional, SRI and in gross margin between conventional, SRI and Best Management Practice (BMP).Best Management Practice (BMP).

- Keep high involvement of farmersKeep high involvement of farmers

THANKS FOR YOUR THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTIONATTENTION ! !