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

Research article
erd

Factors Causing Deficits in Traditional Rice Liquor
Production in Rural Areas of Cambodia
MITSURU HAMANO
Faculty of Agriculture, Shinshu University, Nagano, Japan
Email: hamano_m@shinshu-u.ac.jp

TETSUO MATSUMOTO
Nagoya University, Aichi, JapanKASUMI ITO*
International Center for Research and Education in Agriculture, Nagoya University, Aichi,
Japan
Email: kasumito@nagoya-u.ac.jp
Received 15 January 2020

Accepted 23 April 2020(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Adding value to agricultural products is expected to play an important role inincreasing income and reducing poverty in rural areas of Cambodia. The promotion of agroprocessing is one of the key strategies for the value addition. A variety of processed foods
produced by individual small-scale farmers have helped generate income, with the exceptionof rice liquor which has been faced deficits and low profitability. This study aimed to clarify
the socio-economic status of rice liquor farmers in rural areas and to examine the factors
leading to deficits and surpluses in rice liquor production. Data on the economic status of rice
liquor farmers and non-rice liquor farmers were collected by conducting structured interviews
using questionnaires at the targeted areas in Takeo Province. Comparisons of the income
structures of the two groups revealed that the rice liquor farmers mainly depended for incomeon agricultural activities including rice liquor production and pig rearing, whereas non-riceliquor farmers depended on non-agricultural activities such as off-farm businesses, labor
work, and remittances. Rice liquor production was less profitable, and around 30% of rice
liquor farmers faced deficits in this activity. A comparison of the economic status between
deficit and surplus operations of rice liquor production revealed the key factors that caused
deficits, such as a low sales price, high cost of rice, low productivity, and high frequency of
production failure. Rice liquor farmers expected improvements in the production techniques,in the quality and productivity of liquor. Thus, modifying production techniques to improve
the quality and productivity of rice liquor, and to reduce the rate of production failure are thekey strategies to increase the profitability of rice liquor businesses.
Keywords agro-processing, added value, traditional product, business improvement,
Cambodia

INTRODUCTION
Adding value to agricultural products is expected to play an important role in increasing income andreducing poverty in rural areas. The promotion of agro-processing in rural areas has emerged as oneof the key strategies to add value to local agricultural products (Royal Government of Cambodia,
2006; Royal Government of Cambodia, 2013). In rural areas of Cambodia, individual small-scale
farmers have produced a variety of processed products, such as pickled vegetables, processed fish,
traditional sweets, charcoal, and rice liquor (sraa sar in Khmer). The production of these processed
foods, with the exception of rice liquor, has helped generate income for rural households; in contrast,
rice liquor production has faced deficits and low profitability (Yagura et al., 2010). Instead, suchproducers have obtained profit from pig farming by reducing the cost of feeding pigs by using theby-products derived from the distillation of fermented rice (Vathana and Takeya, 2004; Yagura etⒸ ISERD

106

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

al., 2010). This production system kept pig farming profitable despite rice liquor operations staying
in the red (Yagura et al., 2010). However, recent sales prices of pigs have been fluctuated in the
Cambodian market due to increasing the imported pigs from Vietnam and domestic pig from largescale farms. (Tornimbene and Drew, 2012). This situation have made the small scale rice liquor
farmers with pig farming difficult to sustain their businesses in rural areas. It is significantly
important to examine the strategies to improve profitability of rice liquor production.
The cultural norms and general production methods of alcoholic beverages from rice inSoutheast Asian countries such as Vietnam and Laos have been clarified (Kozaki et al., 2002; Kozaki
et al., 2005). The production methods of traditional brewed and distilled rice liquor in Cambodia
were revealed by Kozaki (2007). Yamamoto and Matsumoto (2011) identified the production
methods and raw materials of starter cultures for rice wine and rice liquor in Cambodia. However,there have been no studies which examined the economic issues and possibilities of the
improvements in rice liquor productions.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to clarify the socio-economic status of rice liquor farmers in rural areas and to
examine the factors that lead to a deficit or surplus to come up with the strategies of the development
in rice liquor production.
METHODOLOGYThis study attempted to clarify the socio-economic status of rice liquor farmers by comparing thefarmers who were engaged in rice liquor production (rice liquor farmers) and those who were not(non-rice liquor farmers). Then, a detailed analysis was conducted by focusing on rice liquor
production, including its economic and technical issues, to examine the factors that lead to deficit
and surplus operations based on the economic analysis and the farmers‘ awareness.
In September 2008, structured interviews were conducted to understand the socio-economic
status of farmers in six targeted communes consisting of 93 villages in Takeo Province, one of theareas where rice cultivation is most popular, given the region’s high productivity and quantity of
produce (Hamano et al., 2013). The most popular communes in rice liquor production were selected
as surveyed areas according to the key informant interview results to the officers of the provincial
department and the district offices, commune chiefs, and village chiefs. These structured interviews
were conducted using questionnaires. All rice liquor farmers in the six communes were interviewed.
They were identified based on the information provided by key informants, such as village andcommune chiefs, since the accurate official information on the number and locations of rice liquor
producers were not found in governmental institutes. In all of the 93 target villages, a non-rice liquor
farmer was randomly selected in each village for comparison in this study.
One of the questionnaires required rice liquor farmers and non-rice liquor farmers to identify
their socio-economic status. The questionnaire sought the following information: details about thehead of the household and his/her spouse; businesses operated by the farmers; and income generated
from the businesses, including other agricultural and non-agricultural economic activities to identify
the main bearers and sources of a household’s income. The other questionnaire was devised
exclusively for rice liquor farmers in the region, and it consisted of questions designed to elicit
detailed information about the production and sale of rice liquor to identify the factors leading to its
deficit and surplus. The questions were designed to elicit the following information: the experienceof producing rice liquor; the production process and frequency; the costs of raw materials andequipment needed for rice liquor production; production failures; sales price and amount of the
product; and existing issues and areas of improvement in rice liquor production. Closed-ended
questions were used to elicit answers regarding these issues and areas of improvement. The
frequencies of keyword appearances as used by the farmers during their responses were also factored
into the analysis. The farmers’ awareness was also examined to ascertain whether there were issues
that significantly affected the production and business of rice liquor farming.
Ⓒ ISERD

107

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

The Statistical Package for Social Science Student Version 16.0 was used to conduct the Mann–
Whitney test to compare the averages of the parameters between rice liquor farmers and non-riceliquor farmers. The deficit and surplus operation groups involved in the production of rice liquor
were also compared in the same way.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONInterviewees and Features of the Households
Table 1 shows the numbers of farmers interviewed for this study and the numbers of their valid
responses that were factored into the analysis. The 93 villages (in the six targeted communes) in theregion consisted of 13,548 households (National Institute of Statistics 2009). A total of 166 rice
liquor farmers, spread across 56 villages, were interviewed, and 117 valid responses were obtained.
In each village in the target areas, a non-rice liquor farmer was randomly sampled for the interviews,
and 87 valid responses were obtained from them. Table 1 shows that the average age of the husbandsof rice liquor farmers was 39.9 years old and the average age of the wives was 38.5 years old. Theseaverages are approximately six years younger than the average ages of the non-rice liquor farmers.
There was, however, no difference in terms of the size of the household. Table 1 also shows theaverage sizes of the paddy fields and rice yields of the rice liquor farmers and non-rice liquor farmers.
Most of both rice liquor and non-rice liquor farmers (96.6%) produced rice as the main staple food.
Rice liquor farmers cultivated rice in 1.12 hectares of paddy field and harvested 1.78 tons of rice
yield on average, which are larger by 31.8% and 27.1% than the corresponding values of non-riceliquor farmers (0.85 hectares and 1.40 tons), respectively.
Table 1 Interviewees
Rice liquor farmers2 Non-rice liquor farmers3 Sig. 4
Valid responses1
117
87
Average age (years old) of husbands (n)
39.9
(110)
46.5
(78)
0.00**
Average age (years old) of wives (n)
38.5
(116)
44.8
(85)
0.00**
Average number of household members (n)
6.0
(117)
6.2
(87)
0.63
Average size (ha) of the paddy fields in wet season (n)
1.12
(113)
0.85
(84)
0.02*
Average rice yield (t) in wet season (n)
1.78
(113)
1.4
(84)
0.02*
Note: 1Overall, 166 rice liquor farmers were interviewed; 117 valid responses were obtained. Moreover, 93 non-riceliquor farmers were interviewed; 87 valid responses were obtained.
2Rice liquor farmers: 7 female household heads and 1 male household head did not have a souse.
3Non-rice liquor farmers: 9 female household heads and 2 male household heads did not have a spouse.
4The Mann–Whitney test was used to compare the averages between the rice liquor farmers and the non-rice liquor
farmers. The average difference is significant at * 5% and ** 1% levels.

The Economic Status of Rice Liquor Farmers and Non-rice Liquor Farmers in Rural Areas
Figure 1 shows the average annual incomes derived from all economic activities by both groups: therice liquor farmers and non-rice liquor farmers. The average income of rice liquor farmers was foundto be 5,601,000 Riel (R) (4,000 R = 1 U.S. Dollar), which was lower than the average income of nonrice liquor farmers of 5,980,000 R by 379,000 R (6.3%). A large proportion (73.8%) of the income
obtained by rice liquor farmers came from agricultural activities, of which 26.5% came from agroprocessing including rice liquor, 38.7% from animal husbandry, 7.2% from rice milling, and 1.4%
from crop/vegetable productions. On the other hand, non-rice liquor farmers obtained 73.8% of theirincome through non-agricultural activities, of which 43.9% came from off-farm business enterprises
such as grocery shops, food stalls, and small restaurants; 17.4% came from the paid work
(employment) such as agricultural work, construction, and public services; and 12.5% came fromremittance provided by family members who lived away from home. The higher average income ofnon-rice liquor farmers was a direct result of the difference of average remittance that the two groupsⒸ ISERD108

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

received, which was 608,000 R. Rice was cultivated by both groups mainly for self-consumption,even though some of the rice was sold on the market. In addition, the rice liquor farmers fed rice totheir pigs. As a result of this, the sales revenue could not cover the production costs. The riceproduction resulted in a negative income of minus 315,000 R for rice liquor farmers and minus
147,000
R for non-riceAgro-processing
Animal liquor
raising farmers.
Rice mill Crop/vegetable cultivation Off-farm businesses Employment Remittance
Rice liquor
farmers(n = 117)

1,487

2,172

(26.5%)(38.7%)

Non-riceliquor282
909
farmers(n = 87) (4.7%) (15.2%)-0

401 76754

569 142(5,601 in total)(7.2%) (1.4%)(13.5%) (10.2%) (2.5%)(5,980 in total)

299 80

2,621

1,039

750

(5.0%)(1.3%)(43.9%)(17.4%)(12.5%)

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

(Thousand
7,000Riel)

Fig. 1 Average annual incomes derived from economic activities
Table 2 shows the detailed figures of the average income structure from the related businesses
practiced by rice liquor farmers and non-rice liquor farmers. The table shows details such as theirannual revenue and income from each business, as well as the numbers of farmer who were engaged
in. For the purpose of this study, the costs involved in family labor were not factored into the generalcosts. All 117 rice liquor farmers earned an average income of 1,364,000 R through the rice liquor
production. Moreover, 31 out of the 117 households earned an additional 463,000 R by producing
other agro-processed foods such as processed fish, palm juice and sugar, pickled vegetables, andtraditional sweets. Of the 87 non-rice liquor farmers, 19 households earned an average income of
1,291,000 R through their involvement in agro-processing practices. The profitability of rice liquor,
which was found to be 12.7%, was lower than the profitability of other agro-processing practices,which was found to be 39.8% for rice liquor famers and 46.5% for non-rice liquor farmers. All rice
liquor farmers raised pigs, and the average income from pig rearing was found to be 2,012,000 R,
and the profitability was found to be 55.6%. Most rice liquor farmers (107) also acquired an average
income of 174,000 R through other animal husbandry involving cattle, chicken, duck, and fish, andthe profitability was found to be 13.0%. A total of 26 non-rice liquor farmers obtained an average
income of 649,000 R by raising pigs and 78 farmers obtained one of 798,000 R from other animalhusbandry, the profitability of each of which was 54.1% and 33.6%, respectively. Forty rice liquor
farmers obtained an average income of 1,172,000 R through rice milling; the profitability of this wasfound to be 38.3%. On the other hand, four non-rice liquor farmers obtained an average income of
6,495,000 R through rice milling, the profitability of which was 66.1%. For the latter, operating therice mills was the main business, whereas for the former, rice milling was a secondary business.
Thirty-five rice liquor farmers and 31 non-rice liquor farmers sold surplus crops and vegetables
such as maize, cucumber, pumpkin, watermelon, mung bean, sugarcane, cassava, and sweet potato,
and their average incomes were 253,000 R and 225,000 R, respectively. Most rice liquor farmers andnon-rice liquor farmers produced rice mainly for self-consumption, although 21 rice liquor farmers(18.6%) and 25 non-rice liquor farmers (29.8%) sold some of their rice. The incomes of riceproduction were minus 327,000 R by 113 out of 117 rice liquor farmers and minus 152,000 R by 84
out of 87 non-rice liquor farmers. The rice liquor farmers used some of their rice for rice liquor
production and feeding their pigs. Since they spent most of their time on rice liquor production andrearing pigs within their daily activities, they tended to spend more on the hiring of extra labor during
the transplantation and harvesting of rice than the non-rice liquor farmers did. As a result, the deficit
for rice among the rice liquor farmers was greater than that by the non-rice liquor farmers, although
the rice fields of the former were 31.8% larger than those of the latter group (Table 1).
In terms of non-agricultural activities, 69 (59.0%) rice liquor farmers were engaged in nonagricultural activities, while the number was 80 (92.0%) for non-rice liquor farmers. In detail, 28(23.9%) rice liquor farmers managed off-farm businesses and gained an average income of 3,152,000Ⓒ ISERD

109

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

R through them. The profitability of these businesses was found to be 19.6%. On the other hand, 37(42.5%) non-rice liquor farmers gained an average income of 6,163,000 R through off-farmbusinesses, the profitability of which was found to be 31.1%. In this context, the average income of
the latter was 96% more than the former’s income, and the latter’s profitability through thesebusinesses was 59% more than the former’s profitability. It was found that 32 (27.4%) rice liquor
farmers were employed as agricultural labor, construction labor, and government staff. Their average
income through these sectors was 2,082,000 R. Twenty-three (19.7%) rice liquor farmers received
an average remittance of 723,000 R from family members who lived away from home. On the other
hand, 36 (41.4%) non-rice liquor farmers received an average income of 2,510,000 R throughemployment, and 33 (37.9%) received an average remittance of 1,977,000 R. The latter’s income
through employment was 21% more than the former’s income. The average remittance received by
the latter was 173% more than the remittance received by the former.
In summary, these results indicate that rice liquor farmers obtain a large part of their income
through pig husbandry and rice liquor farming, although the profitability of rice liquor production is
low compared with that of their other businesses. On the other hand, non-rice liquor farmers dependon non-agricultural businesses more than rice liquor farmers.
Table 2 Income structures of rice liquor farmers and non-rice liquor farmers
Economic activities
Annual revenue
and income

No. of operating farmers
Rice liquor farmers
Non-rice liquor farmers
Sig. 1
Sig. 1
Rice liquor Non-rice liquor Average Average Profit- Average Average ProfitRevenue Income
farmers
farmers
revenue income2 ability3 revenue income ability3
No. (% 4)

Agriculture
Agro-processing
117 (100.0)
Rice liquor
31 (26.5)
OthersAnimal husbandry
117 (100.0)
Pig rearing
107 (91.5)
Others40 (34.2)
Rice milling
35 (29.9)
Crop/vegetable
113 (96.6)
Rice5
Non-agriculture6
69 (59.0)
Off-farm businesses 28 (23.9)
32 (27.4)
Employment
23 (19.7)
RemittanceNo. (% 4)

Thousand Thousand
Riels
Riels

19 (21.8)

10,728
1,164

1,364
463

26 (29.9)78 (89.7)
4 (4.6)31 (35.6)
84 (96.6)80 (92.0)
37 (42.5)
36 (41.4)
33 (37.9)

3,622
1,339
3,059
349
305
16,112-%Thousand Thousand
Riels
Riels

%

12.7
39.8

2,775

1,291

46.5

0.00** 0.05*

2,012
174
1,172
253
-327

55.6 1,199
13.0 2,374
38.3 9,819
72.5
258-107.2
286

649
798
6,495
225
-152

54.1
33.6
66.1
87.2
-53.1

0.00**
0.34
0.03*
0.72
0.89

3,152
2,082
723

19.6 19,846
-

6,163
2,510
1,977

31.1
-

0.39
0.04*
0.36
0.36
0.00** 0.00*

0.00**
0.04*
0.02*
0.87
0.09

Note: The interviews asked the information on the previous year. Questionnaires on agricultural businesses included costand revenue information such as the price and amount of the purchased materials and equipment for one operation cycle.
On non-agricultural businesses, information on daily sales and cost of products were asked. On employment andremittance, amount of salaries and remittances in one month or one year were asked.
1The Mann–Whitney test was used to compare the averages of the revenues and incomes between the rice liquor farmers
and the non-rice liquor farmers. The average difference is significant at * 5% and ** 1% levels.
2The farmer’s labor costs were not included. 3Profitability (%) = Average income ÷ average revenue × 100.
4Proportion for 117 rice liquor farmers and 87 non-rice liquor farmers.
5Numbers (proportions) of rice liquor farmers and non-rice liquor farmers who sold rice: 21 (18.6%) and 25 (29.8%).
6Numbers (proportions) of rice liquor farmers and non-rice liquor farmers who were not involved in non-agriculturalactivities: 48 (41.0%) and 7 (8.0%). Numbers (proportions) of rice liquor farmers and non-rice liquor farmers who
depended on a single non-agricultural activity: off-farm businesses for 17 (14.5%) and 19 (21.8%), employment for 20(17.1%) and 19 (21.8%), and remittances for 12 (10.3%) and 21 (24.1%). Numbers (proportions) of rice liquor farmers
and non-rice liquor farmers.

Characteristics of Deficit and Surplus Operations of Rice Liquor Production
Table 3 describes in detail the economic status of rice liquor production. The average income
obtained from rice liquor production was 5,210 R per production batch. The average sales revenue
was found to be 51,548 R, and the total production costs were found to be 46,338 R. The average
production costs include the costs of raw materials, equipment, and the equivalent value ofⒸ ISERD

110

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

production failure. Rice, the main raw material in this process, accounted for 81.7% of the total costs,
and the starter culture (mee sraa), fuel, and equipment accounted for 5.5%, 4.0%, and 2.6%,
respectively. The production failure equivalent was found to be 6.2% of the total costs.
Table 3 Comparison of the economic status of surplus and deficit operations of rice liquor
production
Rice liquor farmers

Average
1) Income (Riel/time)2) Sales revenue (Riel/time) 2(1) Sales price of liquor (Riel/L)(2) Sales amount of liquor (L/time)3) Total production costs (Riel/time)(1) Rice cost (Riel/time) 3
a. Rice unit price (Riel/kg)
b. Rice amount (kg)/time(2) Starter cost (Riel/time)(3) Fuel cost (Riel/time)(4) Equipment cost (Riel/time)(5) Failure cost (Riel/time) 4
a. Failure frequency (time/year)
b. Production frequency (times/year)4) Experience (years)5) Age of husbands
Age of wives

Total farmers Deficit group Surplus group Sig. 1
n = 117n = 37n = 80(100.0%)(31.6%)(68.4%)
Amount %AmountAmount5,210-8,065
11,3490.00**
51,54845,35954,4110.00**
1,561
1,435
1,619
0.00**
33.2
31.4
34.0
0.09
46,338 100.0
53,42343,0620.00**
37,869 81.7
42,66035,6530.00**
1,890
20.2
2,550
1,850
1,204
2,865
9.7
211
7.1
39.9
38.5

5.5
4.0
2.6
6.2

1,994
21.6
2,895
2,532
1,252
4,084

1,842
19.6
2,391
1,534
1,183
2,301

0.00**
0.04*
0.94
0.04*
0.02*
0.05*

12.7
186
6.3
41.3
39.5

8.4
223
7.4
39.2
38.0

0.02*
0.07
0.32
0.23
0.34

Note: The interviews asked the questions on rice liquor production including production cost and revenue(sales) information such as the price and amount of the purchased raw materials, and sales amount and unit
price for one time production, equipment cost, production frequency, and experiences.
1The Mann–Whitney test was used to compare the averages between the surplus and deficit groups. The
average difference is significant at * 5% and ** 1% levels.
2The average sales revenue= 1 ∑N ab . 3 The average rice cost= 1 ∑N ab .
ii
N l̇=1N l̇=1
4 Farmers recognized production failure when retailers and consumers refused to purchase the liquor due
to its poor quality (Failure cost/time = Revenue/time × Failure frequency/year ÷ Production
frequency/year).

Thirty-seven households (31.6%) of the rice liquor farmers in the region faced a deficit of an
average of minus 8,065 R in their operation, whereas 80 households (68.4%) earned a profit, of
11,349 R on average. For the deficit group, the average revenue through sales was found to be 45,359
R, which is 83.4% of the revenue earned by the surplus group (54,411 R). The average total
production costs for the deficit group were 53,423 R, which is 12.4% more than the surplus group(43,062 R). In terms of revenue, the average sales price for the deficit group liquor was 1,435 R/L,
which is 11.4% less than the sales price of liquor produced by the surplus group (1,619 R/L). The
deficit group produced rice liquor at 31.4 L/batch, which is 7.6% less than the liquor amount of thesurplus group (34.0 L/batch). In terms of production costs, the cost of rice for the deficit group was
42,660 R (79.9% of the total product costs), which was 20% more than the amount paid by the surplus
group (35,653 R, 82.8% of the total product costs). The deficit group used 21.6 kg of rice per batch
and purchased rice at 1,994 R per kg; these amounts were 10% and 8% more than those by the surplus
group, respectively. The deficit group experienced production failure at a rate of 12.7 times per year,
which is 51% more than the failure rate by the surplus group. For the deficit group, the loss incurredfrom such failure was equivalent to 4,084 R, which is 77% more than the loss for the surplus group,and constituted the second highest cost. On average, the deficit group produced rice liquor 186 times
per year, which is 16.6% less than the value of the surplus group.
Ⓒ ISERD

111

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

These results indicate that a low sales price, high cost of rice, and frequent production failure
were the key factors that caused deficits for rice liquor farmers. Younger and more experienced rice
liquor farmers produced rice liquor more frequently and also tended to earn a greater profit as a result.
Table 4 shows the conditions that characterize production failures. Keywords that were
frequently encountered in responses pertained to “unsuccessful fermentation” characterized by acidic
and spoiled smell/taste, bubble expansion of the fermented rice, and a “burnt smell”. These results
indicate that the failures typically occurred during the fermentation and distillation stages.
Table 4 Characteristics of production failure as identified by the farmers
Criteria
Frequency1%
2
Unsuccessful fermentation
59
46.8
Burnt smell
59
46.8
Low amount of liquor
6
4.8
Uncooked rice
2
1.6
Total
126
100.0
Note: 1Frequent use of keywords in response to an open-ended question. Interviewees wereasked to identify situations of “production failure”; 126 keyword appearances by 100
respondents were analyzed.
2Unsuccessful fermentation was characterized by “acidic” and “spoiled” smell/taste andbubble expansion of the fermented rice.

Issues and Areas of Improvement Identified by Rice Liquor Farmers
The issues identified by the rice liquor farmers who participated in this study are shown in Table 5.
The areas in which they expected improvement are shown in Table 6. Closed-ended questions wereused to elicit information about the two most important issues and expected improvement areas fromthe farmers. In terms of issues, the respondents most commonly mentioned expensive rice (55.5%),
followed by the low quality of products (40.9%), low sales price (21.8%), scarcity and high cost offuel (20.0%), and low volume of alcohol (18.2%). In terms of expected improvements, therespondents most commonly mentioned the production techniques (79.8%), followed by the qualityof rice liquor (60.5%), sales price (23.7%), productivity (12.3%), and the cost of rice (4.4%). Amongthe 91 farmers who expected production techniques to be improved, 54 indicated that the quality of
the rice liquor should also be improved simultaneously. These results indicate that rice liquor farmers
place emphasis on improving production techniques, while also acknowledging the need to improve
the quality of their product.
Table 5 Issues related to rice liquor production
IssuesExpensive rice
Low quality
Low sales priceScarcity of fuel (expensive)
Low alcohol volume
Difficulties acquiring sanitary water
Late or incomplete payment by buyer
Production failure
OthersTotal

Answers
61
45
24
22
20
17
13
10
8
220

%
n = 110
55.5
40.9
21.8
20.0
18.2
15.5
11.8
9.1
7.2

Table 6 Improvements farmers expected inrice liquor production processes
Improvements
Production techniques
Quality
Sales price
Productivity
Cost of rice
Marketing and sales
Packaging/bottling
OthersTotal

Note: A closed-ended question was used to ask interviewees to
identify the two most important issues in rice liquor production.
Total respondents: 110. Unavailable answers: 7

Answers % (n = 114)
91
79.8
69
60.5
27
23.7
14
12.3
5
4.4
5
4.4
4
3.5
13
11.3
228

Note: A closed-ended question was used to ask
interviewees to identify the two most expectedareas of improvement. Total respondents: 114. No
answers: 1. Unavailable answers: 2

Table 7 shows the keywords typically used by the farmers to characterize low-quality rice liquor.
The most frequently used keyword was “acidic smell/taste” (37.9%), followed by “burnt smell/taste”Ⓒ ISERD112

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

(22.0%). Other frequently used words included “watery taste,” “spoiled smell/taste,” “stimulus
smell/taste,” “cloudy,” and “addition of industrial alcohol.”Table 8 compares the sales prices and number of production failures of the 45 farmers who
answered that “quality” was one of the most important issues with those of the 65 farmers who did
not in Table 5. The sales price of rice liquor for the former was 1,495 R per liter, which is 6.7% lower
than the sales price for the latter. The former tended to experience more production failures. On
average, they experienced failures 12.2 times per year, whereas the latter experienced failures 8.6
times per year. These results show that the farmers who experienced more production failures tended
to recognize the poor quality of their products and, as a result, sold their rice liquor at a lower price.
Table 7 Characteristics of low-quality rice liquor Table 8 Comparison of the operational
status between the farmers who
Characteristics
Frequency1 %answered that quality was an
Acidic smell/taste
67
37.9
important issue and those who
Burnt smell/taste
39
22.0
did not
Watery taste (no smell/taste)
23
13.0
Spoiled/bad/strange smell/taste
Stimulus smell/taste
CloudyAddition of industrial alcohol
Others
Total

13
8
7
6
14
177

7.3
4.5
4.0
3.4
7.9
100.0

Note: The question aimed to identify the characteristics
of low-quality rice liquor, as perceived by the farmers.
Overall, 102 out of 117 respondents provided answers;
the keywords were mentioned a total of 177 times.
Fifteen respondents had no opinion. 1Frequent use of
keywords in response to an open-ended question.

Farmers’ recognition Farmers who Farmers who didof the poor quality as answered 1
not answered 2
an important issue(n = 45)(n = 65)

Sig. 3

Sales price (Riel)/L
Production failures(times)/year

1,495

1,592

0.15

12.2

8.6

0.26

Note: 1 Farmers who answered that “quality” was animportant issue in Table 5.
2 Farmers who did not answer that “quality” was animportant issue in Table 5.
3 The Mann–Whitney test was used to compare theaverages between the two groups.

Comparisons of the income structures between the rice liquor farmers and non-rice liquor
farmers revealed that the rice liquor farmers mainly depend for income on agricultural activities suchas rice liquor production and pig rearing, whereas non-rice liquor farmers depend for income on nonagricultural activities such as off-farm business enterprises, labor work, and remittances from family
members living elsewhere. However, producing rice liquor is not very profitable, and around 30%
of rice liquor farmers faced deficits in their rice liquor business. Improving the economic benefits ofproducing rice liquor may help economically uplift rice liquor farmers.
Analysis of the economic status of the rice liquor farmers revealed the key factors that cause
deficits in their rice liquor businesses. These factors included the low sales price of rice liquor, highcost of rice, and low productivity, such as more volume of raw rice, less volume of product, andhigher rate of production failure.
Rice liquor farmers in rural areas expected improvements in the production techniques used andin the quality and productivity of liquor that they produce. Improving the quality of rice liquor may
also enable the farmers to increase their sales price and reduce the frequency of production failure.
Gaining more experience in terms of technique and management could improve the operational statusof rice liquor farmers who are currently in a deficit in their business.
Thus, modifying production techniques to improve the quality and productivity of rice liquor
and to reduce the rate of production failure are key strategies to improve the economic benefits ofrice liquor production. Preventing production failures and improving productivity would directly
decrease the costs and increase profitability. Solving the issues during fermentation and distillationthat the farmers had noted could contribute to reducing production failures and improving the qualityof their liquor by reducing low-quality characteristics such as an acidic or burnt smell/taste. If farmers
had confidence in the quality of their product, they could increase its sales price, which would also
increase their revenue.
CONCLUSIONⒸ ISERD

113

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

This study has identified the factors that lead to deficits in the rice liquor business in rural areas ofCambodia. Technical modifications to improve the quality and productivity of rice liquor, and to
reduce the likelihood of production failure, are key strategies to increase profitability.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Royal University of Agriculture, Cambodia for supporting this survey. This study was
supported by Grants-in Aid for Scientiﬁc Research (No. 20405045) and Cooperation Bases System(34-G-G0003) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan.
REFERENCES
Hamano, M., Matsumoto, T. and Ito, K. 2013. Technical modifications for the quality improvement of rice
liquor (Sraa Sar) in Cambodia. Tropical Agriculture Development, 57 (4), 126-137.
Kozaki, M. 2007. Alcohol beverages and fermented foods of Ratanak Kiri, in Northeast Cambodia. J. Brewing
Soc. Japan 102, 31-38. (in Japanese)
Kozaki, M., Naitoh, A. and Takayama, T. 2005. Rice wine of northern Laos (1): Fermented mash of rice wineand distilled rice wine of Thai people. J. Brewing Soc. Japan 100, 796-806. (in Japanese)
Kozaki, M., Iino, H., Thuoc, T.L., Ho, P.T. and Seki T. 2002. Rice wine of south highland of Annamese
Cordillera (Vietnam) –ruou can and ruou nep–. J. Brewing Soc. Japan 97, 327-337. (in Japanese)
National Institute of Statistics. 2009. General population census of Cambodia 2008. National Report on Final
Census Results, National Institute of Statistics of Ministry of Planning, Royal Government of Cambodia(Phnom Penh), 291.
Royal Government of Cambodia, 2006, National strategic development plan 2006-2010. Royal Governmentof Cambodia (Phnom Penh), 211.
Royal Government of Cambodia, 2013, National strategic development plan 2014-2018, Royal Governmentof Cambodia, Phnom Penh.
Tornimbene, B. and Drew, T. 2012. Characterisation of Swine Production systems in the Cambodian Mekong
lowland region. Royal Veterinary College, University of London. 30.
Yagura, K., Nishimura, Y., Keo, S. and Matsumoto, T. 2010. Roles and obstacles of agro-processing industries
in rural Cambodia. J. Agr. Develop. Studies, 20, 1-8. (in Japanese with English summary)
Yamamoto, S. and Matsumoto, T. 2011. Rice fermentation starters in Cambodia: Cultural importance andtraditional methods of production. Southeast Asian Studies, 49 (2), 192-213.
Vathana, T. and Takeya, H. 2004. Economic evaluation of local feed resources in fattening pigs in Cambodia.
Journal of Agricultural Development Studies, 15, 69-79Ⓒ ISERD

114