IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-2

Research article
erdSocio-Economic Evaluation on How Crop Rotations on
Clayey Soils Affect Rice Yield and Farmers’ Income in the
Mekong Delta, Vietnam
TRAN BA LINH*
Can Tho University, Vietnam
Email: tblinh@ctu.edu.vn, linh.tranba@ugent.be

WIM CORNELIS
Ghent University, Belgium

SARA VAN ELSACKER
Ghent University, Belgium

LE VAN KHOACan Tho University, Vietnam
Received 15 December 2012

Accepted 6 May 2013(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Declining land productivity is a major problem faced by small holder farmers in
the Mekong Delta today. Low soil quality is one of the greatest long-term challenges forfarmers in rice monocultures on alluvial soil. In order to better understand how farmcharacteristics and crop rotations affect crop yield and income, a socio-economic
evaluation among smallholder farmers were conducted in Cai Lay District, Tien Giang
province. During farm household surveys, information on household characteristics, farm
cropping activities, farm production practices and performance, and household income
was collected. Four types of farming practices were observed, one based on traditional rice
monoculture with three rice crops per year (RRR), one based on a crop rotation with tworice and one upland crop (RUR), one based on a crop rotation with one rice and two
upland crops (RUU), and a fourth based on upland crop monocultures (UUU). From theresults of interviews with the farmers, it was found that rotations with RUR or RUU gavehigher rice yields than RRR. The rice yield in the last five years increased when rotations
with upland crops were implemented (RUR and RUU), which was strongly in contrast
with the rice yield decrease over the last five years for rice monoculture systems (RRR).
The benefit-to-cost ratio was the highest for RUR. Interestingly, in RUR and RUU,
farmers apply less fertilizer and pesticide for rice production compared to RRR. The
survey revealed that many farmers had a tendency to apply too much nitrogen as a way tocompensate for the reduced rice growth due to land degradation in RRR. Regarding farm
size in the study area, the average size is about 0.62 ha. The size of small farms is 0.36 ha
and such small farms are found in UUU systems. The largest farms (0.91 ha) were foundin RRR systems. Farms of 0.68 ha and 0.43 ha are found in RUR and RUU systems,
respectively. The average profit of RUR and RUU was 2,490 USD/ha/year and 2,686
USD/ha/year, respectively. Those were higher than the profit of RRR farming (1,094
USD/ha/year), but lower than the profit from UUU systems (3,058 USD/ha/year).
Keywords alluvial soil, crop rotation, rice yield, profit, Mekong Delta

INTRODUCTION
In the Mekong Delta, Vietnam soil groups of recent alluvial sedimentation (Holocene period) occupy
about 1.2 million ha (31% compared to Mekong Delta) (Le Ba Thao, 1997). The soils in this groupare located on both sides of the Mekong River. They have a fine texture (silty clay to clay) and slopes
are <1% slopes (Le Ba Thao, 1986). The Mekong delta has a great agriculture productive potential,© ISERD
62

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-2

with a distinct dry and wet season. The wet season starts in May and ends in November. The
average rainfall is about 2,000mm concentrated mainly between July and October (Le Sam, 1996).
The fields’ water level is influenced by a semi diurnal tidal regime, hence sufficient water isavailable for irrigation during the dry season. Agricultural production in the Mekong delta is basedon private smallholding. Farming in the delta is strongly rice oriented (Xuan and Matsui, 1998).
They are suitable for rice production and continuous rice cultivation is the dominant cropping
pattern. However, after long-term practicing triple rice cropping, the land use system exposed its
negative effects on soil quality and crop production. Long-term practicing of continuous cultivationis the main cause of degraded physical and chemical soil properties (Acosta, 2004; Achmad et al.,
2003; Cotching et al., 2002). One of the most prominent types of soil degradation is soil
compaction, which mainly originated from rice cultivation with high soil rotation and increased
mechanization under wet conditions (Lima et al., 2009).
The objectives of this study are to better understand how farm characteristics and crop
rotations of rice and upland crops affect crop yield and income, hence on the socio-economic
situation of rice farmers. Our research will be helpful to provide basic information for future
research in order to conserve the natural land resources and support sustainable agricultural
production.
METHODOLOGY
The study was carried out in the Cai Lay district, Tien Giang province, the major alluvial region in
the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. It was selected to represent major conditions of long term systems of
three rice crops per year. The study area has a plain landform and an elevation of 2 m above sea
level. The soil had high clay content (58-67%) and has been classified as Fluvisol (Department ofSoil Science, Can Tho University, 2005). The topsoil was slightly acidic with pH of 5.0-6.0.
A farm household survey was undertaken with farmers from four villages (Long Khanh, Cam
Son, Binh Phu, Long Tien). All villages included four types of crop cultivation: 3 rice crops per
year (RRR), 3 upland crops per year (UUU), 1 rice and 2 upland crops per year (RUU), and 2 riceand 1 upland crop per year (RUR). A total of 109 farm households were interviewed using
structured questionnaires. For the cultivation of 3 upland crops per year, 19 farmers wereinterviewed and for the other cultivations, 30 farmers were interviewed. The surveyed farms wererandomly selected. In the interviews, sheets with following information were collected: history ofpeople’s settlement and exploitation, and crop rotation system development; cropping pattern andtypes of cultivation; cultivation techniques and land management like soil preparation for
cultivation, application of fertilizers, irrigation and drainage, limiting factors of plant yield and soil
productivity and rice yield and total cost of cultivation for calculating economic efficiency of thedifferent land use practices. Data on the farm area were collected throughout 2010-2011.
Analyzing the differences between the means was tested using SPSS v17. Significant
differences were determined using the Duncan multiple range test at 5% significance level.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Present land use systems and cultivation practices
Interview results showed that upland crops (cucumber, tomato, water melon, maize, hot pepper,
okra, mungbean, vegetables) are normally cultivated on raised beds, with the soil dug to 20-30 cm
depth for making raised beds and furrows. Meanwhile, rice is planted on flat fields after ploughing
and puddling with a small tractor for every rice crop season. Current canal systems which arecarrying the fresh water irrigation and dike systems preventing flood water, farmers are able tocultivate 3 crops a year, i.e. a winter-spring crop (from November to February), a summer-autumn
crop (from March to June) and an autumn-winter crop (from July to October). Inorganic fertilizers
such as Diammonium phosphate (DAP), Urea, Superphosphate, Potassiumclorua, NPK (Nitrogen,
Phosphorous, Potassium) 20-20-15, NPK16-16-8 are broadcasted by hand. Organic manures are© ISERD
63

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-2

not applied. Rotations of rice with upland crops have been practiced for 5 years (since 2006) on
fields that have serious soil compaction problems, which resulted in decreased rice yield eventhough farmers apply higher doses of fertilizer.
After harvest, some farmers dried their rice product first and stored them for a while. Aftersome time, when the household needs cash or when the market prices were high, they sell theirproduct. More than 80% of the farms sell their products directly to buyers after harvest.
The sowing density of rice in RRR is higher in comparison with RUR and RUU. In the winterspring season, about 57% of the surveyed farmers in RRR used 100 to 150kg seeds/ha, and 43%
used 150 to 200 kg/ha, whereas this was 73% and 27% for RUR, and 83% and 17% for RUU,
respectively. In the autumn-winter seasons about 23% of the surveyed farmers in RRR used 100 to
150kg seeds/ha, and 77% used 150 to 200 kg/ha. For RUR, this was 53% and 47%, respectively.
Regarding fertilizer application for rice growing, the optimum fertilizer level for this area is
100 kg N/ha (Vo Thi Guong and Tran Ba Linh, 2008). The results of the survey revealed that
farmers in RRR had a tendency to apply high doses of N as a way to compensate for the reduced
rice growth and rice yield resulting from land degradation. N fertilizer application of 77% of thesurveyed farmers in winter-spring season and 63% in autumn-winter in RRR system was over therecommended dosage, ranging from 101 to 130 kg N/ha/crop season. This is remarkably higher ascompared to RUR and RUU. Although, farmers apply less fertilizer and pesticides in rice-uplandcrops, rotation systems for rice production compared to RRR, the rice yield was higher for RUR
and RUU than for RRR (Figure 2). The heavy inorganic fertilizer and pesticide use in RRR might
further causes water pollution and unbalanced rice field ecology.
Farm size
The average area under cultivation per farmer for the different rotations is shown in Figure 1.
Agricultural production in Cai Lay is based on private smallholding with an average farm size ofless than 1 ha. The average farm size in the study area is about 0.62 ha. The farm size of the RRR
system ranged from 0.45 to 2.50 ha with an average of 0.91 ha. The average size of small farms is
0.36 ha and such small farms are found in UUU systems. Farms of average size of 0.68 ha and 0.43
ha are found in RUR and RUU systems, respectively. The RUU and UUU systems was practiced
on significantly smaller farm as compared to RRR (p<0.05).
Farmers who choose rice monoculture cropping system have a large part of their land undercultivation in contrast with the small scale farmers who seem to adopt a strategy of diversification.
The diversification of the farming system corresponds to a strategy by small scale farmer tostabilize their economic situation and improve their soil. Nevertheless, it is expected that theireconomic situation is threatened because of the tendentious depreciation of rice yield. Farmers who
cultivate mono rice does not like to replace with another crop because of the high investment, themarket price of upland crops is not being stable and the limited storage possibilities of their productif they cannot sell it immediately after harvesting.

Area under cultivation (ha)

1.4

a

1.2

b

1
0.8

c
c

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
RRR

RUR

RUU

UUU

Land use systems

Fig. 1 Average area under cultivation per farmer (ha) for the different land use systems© ISERD
64

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-2

Rice yield evolution
Based on the interviews with local farmers in the study area, the following information on rice crop
yield was collected (Fig. 2). It was shown that rice yield is different among farmer groups. Farmersof rotation groups RUR or RUU obtained a much higher rice yields than RRR system. The meandifference was statistically significant in all seasons. Rice yields were significantly different(p<0.05) among the systems of RRR (6.3 ton/ha) and RUR (6.9 ton/ha) or RUU (7.0 ton/ha) inwinter-spring and among the systems of RRR (4.2 ton/ha) and RUR (5.1 ton/ha) in autumn-winter.
Besides that, rice yield in the last five years (since 2006) increased when rotations with uplandcrops were implemented (RUR and RUU), with for RUR an increase of 9% for autumn-winter andwith 6% for winter-spring, and for RUU an increase of 8% for winter-spring. This was strongly incontrast with the rice yield decrease over the last five years for rice monoculture systems (RRR),
which showed a decrease of 8%. The yield increase in the rice-upland crop rotations can beassociated with improved soil quality resulting from cycles of drying (upland crops) and wetting(rice cultivation). The rice monocultures recorded the lowest yield because, according to thefarmers, soil fertility was reduced.
7,500

Yield (kg/ha)

7,000

RRR (W-Sp)

6,500

RUR (W-Sp)

6,000

RUU (W-Sp)

5,500
RRR (Su-A)

5,000
RUR (A-W)

4,500

RRR (A-W)

4,000
2006

2007

2008 2009
Year

2010

W – Sp: Winter-Spring; Su – A: Summer-Autumn; A – W: Autumn-Winter.

Fig. 2 Rice yield within recent-past 5 years (kg/ha) for the different land use systems
There was also a large variation in rice yield over seasons was observed. The rice yield wasmuch higher for winter-spring rice than for the summer-autumn or autumn-winter cropping period(Fig. 2). In the winter-spring season, rice showed much higher yield on average of five years (6.5;
6.7 and 6.8 ton/ha for RRR, RUR and RUU, respectively) as compared to summer-autumn (4.6
ton/ha for RRR) and autumn-winter seasons (4.3 and 4.9 ton/ha for RRR and RUR, respectively).
This may be due to the better climatic conditions with planting just after the flood season, higher
solar radiation and adequacy of irrigation water and that is the reason why rice is preferably
cultivated in the winter-spring period. According to the farmers, the weather and insect pests are
the major cause of yield loss in rice production in the summer-autumn and autumn-winter seasons.
Economic evaluation
The total economical balance for each land use system was analyzed based on a 1 ha farm size. The
production costs like those for seeds and materials, fertilizer, labor and pesticide constitute animportant part of the total variable cost of the system. Figure 3 shows the costs for seeds andmaterials, fertilizers, pesticides and labor on the one hand (input) and income on the other (output)
with total profit, the difference between both for the different land use practices. The total cost of
upland crop monoculture (UUU) and rice-upland crop rotation systems (RUR and RUU) weresignificantly higher than those of RRR farms. This is supported by findings of Huynh Dao Nguyen
et al. (2010) in a rice-upland crop survey conducted in Cho Moi district, An Giang province.
For the whole sample, labor cost is the main input contributing about 56% of the total
production cost, followed by fertilizer (26%), pesticide (13%) and seed (6%). Although most
farmers have enough family laborers for rice production, most farmers hired labor for seasonal
activities. On average, the hired labor cost contributed about 40-45% of the total labor cost. On thewhole, the production cost in the wet seasons is higher than that in the dry season. Usually, wet© ISERD
65

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-2

fields are more difficult to work, especially for harvesting. Harvesting of the wet season crop
occurs at a time of heavy rains so that farmers face serious problems for postharvest activities suchas drying, cleaning and hauling. In rice farming, hand weeding, harvesting and post harvest use apredominant portion of the labor input. Tractors reduce the labor requirement for land preparation.
The planting of modern varieties and a high rate of fertilizer application increase the need of laborfor weeding, although farmers apply herbicides to control the weeds. The labor requirement for
harvesting and post harvesting also increases in function of the increased output.
The contribution of seeds and materials to the total cost is low (7%) for RUR and RUU.
Fertilizer application accounts for 21 to 23% of the total cost for RUU and RUR, respectively.
Labor manifests the highest contribution to the total cost (61-62% of total cost). The use of uplandcrops in the rotations creates more labor because of the need for raised beds that have to be dug.
This makes the total cost to increase with increasing use of upland crops in the rotation. In riceupland crops rotation systems, farmers apply less fertilizer and pesticide for rice production so thatthe rotation with one or two upland crop shows the lowest costs for pesticides. The interruption of
the rice cultivation by an upland crop can break off the food-supply for rice specific pests anddecreases the need for pesticides.
7000
6000

USD

5000
4000
RRR

3000

RUR
2000
RUU
1000

UUU

fit
pr
o

e
To
ta
l

t
co
s

in
co
m
To
ta
l

To
ta
l

La
bo
ur

tic
id
e
Pe
s

til
ize
r
Fe
r

Se
e

ds
+

m

at
er
ia
ls

0

Fig. 3 Cost and income for the different land use systems (in USD)
Farmers practicing rice monoculture generally receive a lower farm income per hectare thanthose applying rotated farming systems, per year or and per season. In other words, farmers
growing other crop rotations with rice or monocultures of upland crops can receive a higher income.
The total income is highest for UUU, followed by RUU and RUR, and finally RRR per season andper year. The total income of RUR and RUU was 5,025 USD/ha/year and 5,575 USD/ha/year,
respectively. Those were higher than the net income of RRR (3,424 USD/ha/year), but significantly
lower than the net income from the UUU system (6,338 USD/ha/year). It is believed that rotatedfarming systems not only help farmers to increase their farm income, but also contributes to ruraldevelopment and sustainable agriculture. On the other hand, there were large total profit
differences among the farmer classes. The rotation of farmer's profit was more than two times
higher than that of mono rice farmer's and the profit of upland crop farmers was almost three times
higher than that of mono rice farmer's. Indeed, the total profit of RRR was only 1,094 USD/ha/year,
whereas the UUU farmers gained a very high of 3,058 USD/ha/year, and RUR and RUU farmers amodest 2,490 USD/ha/year and 2,686 USD/ha/year, respectively.
Table 1 shows that the costs-benefit ratio (B/C) in rice-upland crop rotation farming systems
was higher than in traditional mono rice crop patterns. The B/C shows that rice monoculture has
the lowest profit over costs (46 to 51% lower than the other land use systems) and that RUU is themost successful with B/C 100%. Although there was not significance in B/C between RUR and
RUU, they were significantly higher than that of the RRR system.
Compared to rice monocultures, rotations of rice and upland crops give higher values of farm
diversity and economic efficiency. The rice-upland crop systems are therefore more ecologicallysustainable than rice monoculture systems. The rice-upland crop rotation farming systems could be
expanded further in future. However, low market prices sometime for rice and upland crop, lack of
capital investment, low level of technological skills, inadequate knowledge on natural resource© ISERD
66

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-2

management, and unfavorable marketing system, among others, are major constraints for rotatedrice-upland crops systems in the target area. Moreover, farmers who cultivate upland crops have to
face low prices at the farm gate, since upland crops, especially vegetables are quickly damaged
after harvest. In order to help the farmers, better models of farmer organizations should be
developed. An appropriate and efficient credit scheme and integrated and interdisciplinary research
are urgently suggested to improve and widely develop rotated rice-upland crop systems in this area.
Table 1 Costs-benefit ratio for different land use systems.
Land use system
RRR
RUR
RUU
Winter-Spring
0.86d
1.24b
1.35a
Summer-Autumn
0.09b
0.82a
0.88a
Autumn-Winter
0.45c
0.98a
0.78b
Whole year
0.47b
0.98a
1.00a
Within rows, values followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P=0.05

UUU
1.15c
0.90a
0.76b
0.93a

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSRice yield in the Cai Lay district, Tien Giang province in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam alluvial soils
with a clay texture was found to be lower in rice monocultures (RRR), than in rotation systems
with upland crops (RUR or RUU) which both showed similar high rice yield. On the other hand,rice yields were higher in the winter-spring season than the summer-autumn and autumn-wintercropping period. Applying upland crops to paddy fields can positively enhance the biodiversity andincrease farmer's income. The cost benefit ratio was highest for rotations upland crop with ricecultivations. It is also assures a lower application rate of agro-chemical in rotation systems. Total
income was highest in upland crop monocultures (UUU), followed by RUR and RUU, withsignificantly lowest values for RRR. Our study showed that replacing the practice of rice
monocultures with rotations with upland crops is very promising. Farmers who adopt new land use
systems not only generate more goods for the society, but also more income for their family andmore protection of land resources. The expansion of rice rotated with upland crops should be
encouraged to increase income, effective utilization of labor and improve the soil quality. However,for national food security, and to sustain rice production, farmers should be encouraged to cultivate
two times of the rice crops and one upland crop per year. More research should be realized in orderto evaluate the effect of the rotation systems on soil quality and thus to better understand the yield
differences.
REFERENCES
Achmad R., Anderson, S.H., Gantzer, C.J. and Thompson, A.L. 2003. Influence of long-term cropping
systems on soil physical properties related to soil erodibility. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 67, 637-644.
Acosta, V.M., Zobeck, T.M. and Allen, V. 2004. Soil microbial, chemical and physical properties incontinuous cotton and integrated crop-livestock systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 68, 1875-1884.
Cotching, W.E., Cooper, J., Sparrow, L.A., McCorkell, B.E., Rowley, W., Hawkins, K., 2002. Effect ofagricultural management on vertisols in Tasmania. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 40, 1267-1286.
Department of Soil Science, 2005. Map of soil groups in the Mekong Delta. Cantho University, Vietnam.
Huynh Dao Nguyen, Vo Thi Guong, 2010. Present mono rice crop systems of fluvial soil inside dikes at Cho
Moi district - An Giang province. Agriculture Publishing House (in Vietnamese).
Lima, A.C.R., Hoogmoed, W.B., Pauletto, E.A. and Pinto, L.F.S. 2009. Management systems in irrigated riceaffect physical and chemical properties. Soil and Tillage Research, 103, 92-97.
Le Ba Thao, 1986. Geography of the Mekong delta. Universal publishing house. Dong Thap province,
Vietnam (in Vietnamese).
Le Ba Thao, 1997. Vietnam: the country and its geographical regions. The Gioi publishers. Hanoi, Vietnam.
Le Sam, 1996. Irrigational system of the Mekong Delta. Agricultural publishing house. Vietnam.
Võ Thị Gương and Trần Bá Linh, 2008. Sustainable nutrient management in intensive rice cropping in the
Mekong Delta. Selected Research Papers, Agronomy Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development, Vietnam (in Vietnamese).

© ISERD
67

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-2

Vo Tong Xuan and Shigeo Matsui, 1998. Development of farming systems in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam.
Vietnam Asia Pacific Economic Center. Ho Chi Minh publishing house. Ho Chiminh, Vietnam.

© ISERD
68