IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-1

Research article
erdStudy of Farmers’ Use of Fertilizers and Methods ofApplication for Rice Cultivation in Central Myanmar
SWE SWE MAR*
Department of Soil and Water Science, Yezin Agricultural University, Myanmar
Email: swesmooth@gmail.com

NAING NAING MOE
Department of Soil and Water Science, Yezin Agricultural University, Myanmar

KYAW NGWE
Department of Soil and Water Science, Yezin Agricultural University, Myanmar

KAZUO ANDO
Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University, Japan
Received 14 January 2020

Accepted 10 April 2020(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Fertilizers play an important role in the maintenance of soil fertility for riceproduction. The correct application of fertilizers can alleviate declining soil fertility. To
improve levels of rice production in central Myanmar, it is essential to assess the current
practices used in the application of fertilizers. The aim of this study is to examine farmers’
knowledge and attitudes to the use of fertilizers for rice production and examine theconstraints they face. A survey was conducted using structured questionnaires to interview
164 farmers, randomly selected from three villages in central Myanmar. The survey data wereanalyzed using descriptive statistics. Based on the survey results, commonly used fertilizers
were urea and compound fertilizers. It was clear that the majority of farmers used amounts belowthat recommended amount in their application of urea and levels of application of mineral
fertilizer varied greatly. About 23% of respondents used cow-dung manure and 12% applied
pulses residues as fertilizers for rice cultivation. Although the farmers’ accept that fertilizer
application is necessary for better rice growing, the majority of the farmers faced financial
difficulties with any increased use of fertilizers. Also, this study shows that the sampled
farmers’ limited knowledge on fertilizer use and the lack of access to the information related tofertilizer management, is a constraint preventing appropriate use of available fertilizers. Thus, clear
improvements to increase agricultural productivity and soil fertility levels would result fromthe improved application of organic and inorganic fertilizers.
Keywords rice cultivation, use of fertilizers, farmers

INTRODUCTIONIn Myanmar the agriculture sector is the backbone of the economy. This sector contributes to 37.8
percent of gross domestic product (GDP), accounts for 25 to 30 percent of total export earnings andemploys 70 percent of the labor force (FAO, 2018). Among the cereal crops, rice is the mostimportant source of national prosperity. Rice is not only the staple food source but also an important
export crop, so successful rice production is crucial. Correctly used, fertilizers can play an importantrole in ensuring successful rice production.
Although Myanmar has had a long history of low fertilizer use, the fertilizer market has
expanded rapidly since 2008. However, current practices in fertilizer use have resulted in theunbalanced application of nutrients. One keyway to improve fertilizer use is to enhance farmers’
knowledge of the specific crop and soil nutrient needs and the fertilizer products (nutrientgrades/formulations) that will best ensure the supply of these needs. Choosing which fertilizer to useⒸ ISERD

100

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-1

is often one of the most important decisions a farmer has to make. However, Myanmar farmers have
limited knowledge of modern agricultural technologies, including fertilizers (IFDC, 2018).
The Department of Agricultural Development and Planning, Myanmar, reports that there is a
declining tendency in domestic use and demand for chemical fertilizers, and that many small holder
farmers have not adopted technology that ensures best use of both organic and inorganic fertilizers
application, nor were farmers fully abreast of the importance of their use (DADP, 2007). This is
despite the advantages of using inorganic fertilizers in boosting production and previous efforts
making these fertilizers more freely available to farmers. In contrast to chemical fertilizers, farmyard
manure has been used long term by Myanmar farmers to restore soil fertility. However, because of
the lengthy process in processing farmyard manure so that it is ready for use, and the limited
availability of animals kept by small holders, the amount of farmyard manure produced and used hasalways been insufficient to needs.
Myanmar faces huge food supply challenges due to the increasing population, the limitedopportunities to increase arable land, and the declining yields associated with continuously declining
soil fertility. In order to improve the productivity of rice farming, particularly for small holder farms
in central Myanmar, it is critical to assess the current practices for the use of fertilizers, and to explore
the constraints encountered by farmers with respect to both the use of organic and inorganic fertilizers.
OBJECTIVES
The main objective is to study the current methods of fertilizer application for rice production in central
Myanmar, and to ascertain any problems and constraints associated with the farmers’ use of fertilizers.
METHODOLOGY
General Description of Study Area
Three villages were selected, with two from the Naypyitaw area (Kyee Inn and Thit Tat villages) andthe third, Chiba (Shwebo Township) from the mid-north of Myanmar. Data were collected using a
structured questionnaire, with the assistance of the village-head (Table 1).
Table 1 General description of Kyee Inn, Thit Tat and Chiba Villages
Variables
Population
Sown acre
Rice sown acre (Summer)
Rice sown acre (Monsoon)
Farmer population
Water availability
Name of DamCropping pattern

Unitacreacreacre

Kyee Inn

Thit Tat

Chiba

2160
1392
850
1000
Irrigated
Nga-like Dam
Rice-Pulses

1522
550
550
550
89
Irrigated
Yezin Dam
Rice-Rice2828
1750
1750
1750
230
Irrigated
Tha Phan Seit Dam
Rice-Rice

Survey and Data Analysis
Interviews were conducted, and farmers taking part were selected using a simple random sampling
method. A total number of 164 farmers (66 from Kyee Inn, 63 from Thit Tat, 35 from Chiba) wereinterviewed using questionnaires which included questions on gender, marital status, farmers’ age,farming experience, location of residence, educational levels, and size of area cultivated for rice.
Questions specific to fertilizer use related to quantity, time of application, and type of fertilizer usedfor rice cultivation. The survey also identified any problems and constraints faced by farmers inⒸ ISERD101

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-1

obtaining fertilizers, and what methods of application were used. All data were analyzed bydescriptive statistics with the Statistix 8th version.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Socioeconomic Background of Sampled Respondents
Agriculture is undertaken by an aging male population at all sites (80% in Kyee Inn, and 89% in Thit
Tat and Chiba). This finding is in agreement with those of Lawal and Ayoola (2008). The results
indicate that the majority of the farmers are about middle aged and according to Yunusa (1999) thisis an economically active age for motivation and innovation.
Education facilitates the transfer and promotion of technologies meant to improve crop
production (Lawal and Ayoola, 2008). The education status of the respondents in the survey areas
varies greatly, with farmers who have no formal education to those who have tertiary education anduniversity education (in this survey university education is given a separate category to education
gained at other tertiary institutions). However, in general, the level of educational attainment issufficient to support the adoption of technology through information sharing and written material.
The percentage of farmers attaining a secondary education is highest in Kyee Inn (45%) followed by
Chiba (43%). Thit Tat village had the highest percentage of farmers (41%), who had attained, at
highest, primary education. These results correspond to those of Ifejika et al. (2008) who found thatthe majority of farmers had some formal education. There is a low percentage of farmers with tertiary
education in all villages. A significant number of farmers with no formal education (14%) is foundonly in Thit Tat village. The results clearly indicate that the farmers in the surveyed villages can, ingeneral, read extension leaflets, posters and magazines promoting innovative farming methods.
Given the small percentage of illiterate farmers it can be expected that knowledge of new methods
would be communicated widely in the farming community.
The amount of experience of farming relates as a key risk management factor, and Ridler andHishamunda (2001) showed that new farmers were at a higher risk compared to experienced farmers.
The survey identified five different levels of farming experience; from under 5 years, then 5 to 10years, 10 to 15 years, 15 to 20 years and finally those with above 20 years of farming experience.
Thit Tat village had the highest percentage of farmers with experience of more than 20 years,
followed by Chiba and Kyee Inn. The data show that most farmers are very experienced and thiswould be expected to enhance effective fertilizer use.
The size of land holding of the respondents ranges from under 2 hectares, 2 to 6 hectares andabove 6 hectares. However, Olayide et al. (1980) classified small-scale farmers as those having 0.1
to 5.99 hectares of farm size. Farm size determines the number of inputs, such as fertilizer, that canbe purchased. Most of the respondent's farms can be classified as small scale, with this being
attributable to land fragmentation with land acquisition among family members.
Types and Brand of Fertilizers used by Farmers in the Survey Area
The data show that the most common types of fertilizers used by the farmers are urea (85%, 95% and100%) and compound fertilizers (97%, 81% and 71%) in the Kyee Inn, Thit Tat, and Chiba villages,respectively. This indicates that farmers in these areas have good knowledge in the use of these typesof fertilizers, which can provide a greater rice yield than other types of fertilizers. However, there
was little use or knowledge of other types of fertilizers such as the Phosphorus and Potash, in thesurveyed villages. In respect to most popular brands, most farmers use a combination of brands withArmo brand used by 87%, followed by Awba (57%), China brand (46%), Myanmar brand (8%), while
Tan Quen and Thailand brand have the same percentage use (5%), and Shwe Nagar (2%).
Methods and Time of Fertilizers ApplicationsⒸ ISERD

102

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-1

According to the data in Table 2, broadcast fertilizer application methods are used by most farmers
across the surveyed villages, and basal application methods are seldom used. The broadcasting
method has a lower investment cost, and is popular as farmers lack the capital to invest inmechanization or even hire labor for alternate application methods. Most respondents used a top
dressing application at the tillering and flowering stages. Some of the respondents from Thit Tat andChiba, but very few from Kyee Inn, apply fertilizers after flowering.
Table 2 Methods and time of fertilizer application for rice crops
Method of application
Broadcast
BasalTime of applicationTop dressing
Tillering
Flowering
After flowering
Total amount of urea
application (kg ha-1)

Kyee Inn
Frequency, (%)
57 (86)0 (0)Thit Tat
Frequency, (%)
50 (79)13 (21)Chiba
Frequency, (%)
34 (98)1 (2)63 (100)60 (95)3 (5)59 (94)55 (87)45 (71)35 (100)
33 (94)22 (63)125.20169.05105.8

Urea Application at Different Farm Size and Education Levels
In Fig. 1, it is clear that farmers on smaller farms applied relatively low amounts of urea fertilizers
in comparison to larger farms in the areas surveyed. This indicates that larger holdings relate
definitely with higher use of urea. The Kyee Inn village in particular, shows this pattern, with vastly
higher amounts of urea application for those areas greater than 6 hectares.
It can be seen that there is a visible progress in the amount of urea application with higher levelsof education for farmers in the Nay Pyi Taw area. However, in the Chiba (Shwebo) area there is aquite difference. Here a relatively lower amount of urea is applied by those with a university level ofeducation, while farmers who were educated to a primary level or by another tertiary institution
applied high amounts of urea. In contrast, university educated farmers from Kyee Inn and Thit Tatvillages apply higher amount of urea for their rice production. In Thit Tat village, farmers with noformal education or a primary level education applied the lowest amounts of urea (Fig 2.).
1000.00
Amount of Urea (kg)Amount of Urea (kg)1000.00
800.00600.00400.00200.00800.00600.00400.00200.000.00

0.00
SmallmediumLarge

No formal Primary Secondary Tertiary University
Education Level

Farm Size (ha)Kyee Inn

Thit Tat

Chiba

Fig. 1 Urea application and farm size

Kyee Inn

Thit Tat

Chiba

Fig. 2 Urea application and education levels

Problems and Constraints Faced by Respondents in Rice Cultivation
Farmers face many problems in growing rice. The main problem is insufficient water, followed byinadequate credit facilities, pest infestation, and problems related to seed and soil in the Nay Pyi Taw
area (that is Kyee Inn and Thit Tat villages). However, poor soil and pest infestation are clearly themain problems faced by Chiba village in their rice production (Fig 3.).
Ⓒ ISERD

103

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-1

Inadequate fertilizer

Lack of knowledge

Constraints to use fertilizers

Problems faced for rice production

Farmers in the survey area encounter many common shared constraints in their use of fertilizers
for rice production (Fig 4.). While farmers of Kyee Inn village are mainly constrained by high costof fertilizers, lack of capital, less in weight and poor quality fertilizer, the farmers in Chiba village
are more constrained by lack of capital, the high cost of fertilizers, lack of organic fertilizers, andnon-availability of fertilizers for timely application. Finally, in the Thit Tat area, the major constraints
on rice production are high cost of fertilizers and replacement of organic fertilizers.

Seed impurity
Inadequate information
Insufficient water
Poor Soil

Non-availability in time
Poor quality of fertilizer
Less in weight
Lack of capital

Infestation of pests

Replacement of organic
fertilizer

Inadequate credit

High cost of fertilizer
0ChibaThit Tat

20406080100
percent of respondents

Kyee Inn0Chiba

Fig. 3 Problems faced by respondents
for rice production

Thit Tat

Kyee Inn

20406080
percent of respondents

100Fig. 4 Constraints on the use fertilizer
for rice production

CONCLUSION
According to these results, respondents in Kyee Inn have the highest appreciation of the benefits ofusing fertilizers. They believe fertilizers are necessary for the crop to do well and can double yields.
To a lesser extent, Thit Tat village has similar attitudes regarding the use of fertilizers, but farmers
from Chiba village do not value fertilizers as much in rice production. Most farmers applied urea
with two to three times of split application to be more efficient for rice production. A majority offarmers use amounts of urea below those recommended (276 kg ha-1 for monsoon season and 414 kg
ha-1 for summer). In spite of the role that fertilizers play in improving rice production, lack of accessto information about fertilizer management, high prices and lack of capital constrain their usage. This
study shows that manure or organic fertilizer cannot be relied on to increase rice production andsustain agricultural productivity. Manure is scarce and transportation costs are high. As a result, thequantity of manure applied is likely to be low. Due to the lack of proper storage facilities the qualityof manure applied is likely to be very low in terms of nutrient supply. Lack of proper managementof fertilizers by farmers increases the cost of production and excessive application will probably haveadverse effects on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Greater education on fertilizer use andmanagement through agricultural extension services, the media, and at the point of sale arerecommended to improve sustainable use of fertilizers for rice production in Myanmar.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was funded by a research grant from the Japan International Cooperation Agency
Technical Cooperation Projects (JICA-TCP) and facilitated by Yezin Agricultural University (YAU)
of Myanmar. We would like to express our gratitude to YAU students, the managers and staff of theDepartment of Agricultural, as well as to all the farmers who participated in this study. Finally, wealso would like to extend our gratitude to the Center for Southeast Asian Studies Kyoto University(CSEAS) who actively supported this study.

Ⓒ ISERD

104

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-1

REFERENCES
Delta State Agricultural Development Programme. 2007. Ibusa & Ors v. Mr. Mike Iloukwu Ofonye, DADP
Annual Report.
FAO. 2018. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in Myanmar.
Ifejika1, P., Akinbile, L., Ifejika, L. and Olajide, J. 2018. The socio-economic effects on adoption ofaquaculture technology among fish farmers in Anambra State Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension,
11 (01), 74-86.
International Fertilizer Development Center. 2018. Soil fertility and fertilizer management strategy forMyanmar. PO Box 2040, Muscle Shoals, AL 35662, USA.
Lawal, B.O. and Ayoola, O.T. 2008. Farmers’ knowledge and use of pacesetter organic fertilizer for arable
crops in Oyo State, Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2, 55-68.
Olayide, S.O., Eweka, J.A. and Bello-Osagie, V.E. 1980. Nigerian small farmers. CARD, University of Ibadan,
Benin-Owena River Basic Development Authority, Benin City.
Ridler, N. and Hishamunda, N. 2001. Promotion of sustainable commercial aquaculture in sub-Saharan Africa.
Policy Framework, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 408/1/Rome, 1, 15-17.
Yunusa, M.B. 1999. Not farms alone, A study of rural livelihoods in the middle belt of Nigeria. DAREASC
Working Paper 38.

Ⓒ ISERD105