IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2019) 10-2

Research article
erd

Economic Performance of Using Combine Harvesters in
Rice Cultivation in Northwest Cambodia
DALIN SUN*Graduate School of Agriculture, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Japan
Email: da.lin3019@gmail.com

TOMOHIRO UCHIYAMA
Faculty of International Agriculture and Food Studies, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Japan

NINA N. SHIMOGUCHI
Faculty of International Agriculture and Food Studies, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Japan
Received 15 Deember 2018

Accepted 31 October 2019(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Labor scarcity is the most common problem for Cambodian farmers duringharvesting season since they commonly harvest rice manually. To reduce harvesting loss,
expenses and time, a well-designed combine harvester is gaining popularity. This study
aims to evaluate the economic performance of using combine harvesters in rice cultivation.
Specifically, this study aims to (1) clarify the reasons farmers adopted the use of combine
harvesters, and (2) compare the profitability of rice farming between combine harvester
owner-farmer and non-owner-farmer. This study was conducted in Banan district,Battambang province, where utilization of combine harvesters is prevalent. A total of 68
respondents who use combine harvesters were randomly selected and interviewed using aquestionnaire and further categorized into 34 combine harvester owner-farmers and 34 nonowner-farmers. The study has four main findings. First, most farmers started using combine
harvesters in 2010 due to labor shortage and high wagers. Combine harvester ownerfarmers spent lesser total production cost compared to non-owner-farmers. Second, the total
production cost of both farmer types varied mainly on the variable cost since the nonowner-farmers spent more on rice harvesting fee, while combine harvester owner-farmers
spent only on the cost of diesel, depreciation, and driver. Third, combine harvester ownerfarmers received the higher profitability compared with the other. Fourth, the three main
reasons for adopting the use of combine harvester were labor shortage during peakharvesting season, convenient harvesting on time, and opportunity to provide custom
service to other farmers.
Keywords combine harvester, custom service, cost and return analysis

INTRODUCTION
Rice is the traditional source of income for rural Cambodian people and the essential staple food ofthe country and other Asian countries (World Bank, 2014). In general, rice cropping cycle takes
about three months to seven months, depending on the geographical and climate conditions, andrice varieties (CARDI, 2013). Harvesting is an important operation to maintain the productivity andquality of rice which require about labor input of 150-200 man-hours/ha (Salassi and Deliberto,2010). With the advent of industrialization, many agricultural laborers have been moved toindustrial and service sectors or migrated to neighboring countries (Chhim et al., 2015; MAFF
Cambodia, 2016).
Recently, rice harvesting became a relevant issue for farmers due to labor scarcity. Combine
harvesters (CH) have become useful and popular to address the problem of labor shortage inmanual harvesting practices. CH can perform several operations such as harvesting, threshing,cleaning, and discharging grain into a bulk wagon or directly into a bag. Paraweewongwuthi et al.
(2010) and Samaraweera (2012) mentioned that net profit of CH was about 30.3% higher comparedⒸ ISERD

152

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2019) 10-2

to manual harvesting and threshing, and there was a significant difference between the average
production costs of CH and manual harvesting methods. Although only limited farmers can afford
to purchase one, many farmers tend to rent CH from other farmers, districts or provinces.
OBJECTIVE
In order to evaluate the economic performance of using CH in rice cultivation, this study aims to(1) clarify the reasons farmers adopted the use of CHs, and (2) compare the profitability of rice
farming between CH owner-farmers and non-owner-farmers.
METHODOLOGYThis study was conducted in Banan district, Battambang province. Located 28 km away from
Battambang city, this district is known as the second largest rice-growing area in the province.
There is also a significantly large number of farmers using combine harvesters. The total area ofthe district is 789 sq. km., of which paddy fields occupy about 43,969 ha (approximately 62% of
total agricultural land) (Banan District, 2016).
Primary data were collected through farm questionnaire survey of randomly selected 68
farmer-respondents and series of key-informant interviews (e.g. district administrator) in Augustand September 2017 in three communes of the district. The farmer-respondents were identified to
be CH users during the time of field survey. They were further equally categorized into 34 CHowner-farmers and 34 CH non-owner-farmers. Non-owner-farmers refer to those who avail custom
service or rent CH.
Simple descriptive methods and cost and return analysis were utilized.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Characteristics of the Farmer-Respondents
Table 1 General characteristics of farmer-respondents
N
Average family size (persons)Average age (year old)
Average educational level (years)
Average farming experience (years)
Average planted land per HH
Wet season rice (ha)Dry Season rice (ha)CH owner-farmers
344
43.6
7.6
16.2

CH non-owner-farmers
344
44.0
6.2
13.5

4.4
5.9

2.6
2.4

Source: Field Survey, 2017

In the study, most farmers mentioned that they have engaged in rice farming since they were young
and have made decisions and improvements based on their own experience and knowledge sharedby their ancestors. Although average age of both types was 44 years old, the average educationlevel and years of farming experience of CH owner-farmers were higher than CH non-ownerfarmers. Moreover, with regards to average planted area, CH owner-farmers had larger size forboth wet (4.4 ha) and dry season rice (5.9 ha) than CH non-owner-farmers.
The Reasons for Using Combine Harvester in the Study Area
In relation to CH adoption, field survey revealed that farmers started using CH in 2010 due to labor
shortages during the harvesting period. Moreover, around 90% of the 34 CH owner-farmers
purchased Kubota brand because of its light-weight body, suitability for harvesting rice in both wetⒸ ISERD

153

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2019) 10-2

and dry seasons, and affordability. In addition, roughly 25% of CH owner-farmers owned two or
three machines depending on their land size and budget.
Table 2 Main reasons for using combine harvesters
Reason of using CH
Have difficulty in securing hired labor
Conveniently harvest on time
Can provide custom service
Have large farm area
Used by many farmers
Millers do not buy rice harvested by handTotalCH owner-farmer(n=34)
97
1052134

CH non-ownerfarmer (n=34)
1011234434

Total
19181286568

Source: Field Survey, 2017

Table 2 shows the reasons for using CH. The following three main reasons were identified: (1)have difficulty in securing hired labor during peak harvesting season, (2) conveniently harvest ontime, and (3) can provide custom service to other farms. Furthermore, according to interviewed
farmers, family factor highly influenced their decision to purchase or use combine harvesters. Thelevel of living condition of farmers in rural areas and educational attainment of farmers were low.
Thus, many young people tend to move from rural to urban areas and work in garment factories
and/or other industries or migrate to other countries. Only elderly farmers were left to farm. CH
owner-farmers added that CH was preferred for reducing harvest losses and maintaining rice
quality and quantity. In general, both group farmers showed satisfaction in CH usage.
Rice Production Cost of Studied Farmers in Wet and Dry Seasons
Table 3 Rice production cost of selected farmers in wet season

Land size

Small

Number of HH
Equipment (1)Hand tractor
TractorPumping pipe
Tractor trailer
Combine harvester
Total fixed cost
Cost of seed
Fertilizing
Herbicide
Pesticide
Land preparation fee
Land preparation (fuel)Material input cost (2)Harvesting cost (3)Family labor cost
Hired labor cost
Total variable cost
Total production
cost

2
17.97
66.00
0.00
11.91
0.00
62.67
158.55
39.36
85.27
9.90
9.90
27.23
4.97
7.02
20.38
37.13
15.10
256.26

Wet season (early maturity, 2016)
CH owner-farmers
CH non-owner-farmers
ExtraExtraMedium Large
Small Medium Large
large
large
56510542
12.81
12.25
11.60
17.52
11.73
12.13
12.16
40.32
38.34
33.70
104.52
80.93
66.49
65.53
69.11
63.29
61.28
0.00
58.96
53.07
48.08
5.82
4.12
3.08
12.49
8.85
6.96
6.67
16.39
14.22
13.64
0
0
0
0
48.02
45.30
39.73
0
0
0
0
192.47177.52 163.03
134.53160.47138.66 132.44
44.95
49.09
49.46
44.45
44.55
48.14
49.01
90.54
97.96 106.53
88.70
90.10
100.73 107.98
11.14
12.38
13.86
10.80
13.61
12.38
12.38
10.02
11.21
12.45
9.41
9.90
10.56
12.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
25.68
0.000.00
0.00
20.36
17.15
15.89
4.84
24.36
23.17
21.13
8.61
9.60
10.94
5.29
8.94
10.94
13.95
19.84
19.58
19.46
100.98103.34102.10 100.56
24.94
18.54
13.71
30.40
21.66
19.59
17.82
31.19
43.49
57.10
25.12
34.90
47.65
52.54
261.60279.00 299.40
345.67351.36375.26 387.74

414.81454.07

Items

456.52462.43480.20511.83

Source: Field Survey, 2017
Note 1) Equipment included blue-sheet, sprayer, sickle and sack.
2) Material input cost included cost of pumping water and transportation.
3) Harvesting cost refer to fuel cost of CH owner; harvesting fee of CH non-owner-farmer.
Ⓒ ISERD

154513.92

520.18

Unit = USD/ha

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2019) 10-2

Production cost for early maturity rice and irrigated type rice was calculated by season, farmer typeand operated land size (e.g. small 0.1 to 2.9 ha; medium 3 to 5.9 ha; large 6 to 9.9 ha; extra-large
10 ha and above).
Looking at the rice production cost during wet season by farmer type and operated land size,
production costs of both farm types were correlated with the increase in operated land size (Table3). For example, extra-large CH owner-farmers spent the most, amounting to 462.43 USD/ha,followed by large CH owner-farmers (456.52 USD/ha), medium (454.07 USD/ha) and small(414.81 USD/ha).
However, CH non-owner-farmers seemed to spend more compared to CH owner-farmers. The
significant difference can be attributed to the higher spending of CH non-owner-farmer on
harvesting fee (about 100 USD/ha), while CH owner-farmers spent on diesel, depreciation anddriver fee only.
Table 4 Rice production cost of selected farmers in dry season
Items
Land size

Small

Number of HH
Equipment cost (1)Hand tractor
TractorPumping pipe
Tractor trailer
Combine harvester
Total fixed cost
Cost of seed
Fertilizing
Herbicide
Pesticide
Ploughing (fuel)Material input cost (2)Harvesting cost (3)Family labor cost
Hired labor cost
Total variable cost
Total production cost

3
12.78
44.64
50.04
6.96
19.10
55.13
188.6644.78
112.62
9.90
9.90
19.81
10.43
19.77
28.96
26.61
282.79471.45

Dry season (irrigated type, 2017)
CH owner-farmers
CH non-owner-farmers
ExtraExtraMedium Large
Small Medium Large
large
large
11
96910
4
0
13.25
13.06
13.22
14.91
14.53
13.76
38.66
37.43
37.04
77.93
74.44
67.75
45.30
38.31
30.76
61.09
52.94
52.12
5.97
4.11
3.43
9.80
8.75
7.41
18.45
18.06
16.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
51.74
44.79
41.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
173.36
155.76142.73163.73150.66141.05
47.65
48.57
51.98
49.79
50.00
50.31
116.58122.28124.50107.82111.14110.10
12.38
13.00
14.85
12.38
14.85
21.35
10.1512.38
13.61
12.38
13.61
20.11
19.36
18.51
17.48
22.24
21.39
19.28
11.62
13.58
15.39
9.95
11.15
15.30
19.53
19.27
19.05
74.94
72.40
72.52
20.85
16.24
11.26
32.80
23.39
18.56
41.34
62.38
75.50
26.83
44.62
58.17
299.45326.19343.62349.13362.55385.71472.81481.95486.35512.86513.21526.75-Source: Field Survey, 2017
Note 1) Equipment cost included blue-sheet, sprayer, sickle and sack.
2) Material input cost included cost of pumping water and transportation.
3) Harvesting cost refer to fuel cost of CH owner; harvesting fee of CH non-owner-farmer.

Unit = USD/haTable 4 shows that production cost in dry season rice seemed to be higher than wet season ricevarieties in both farmer type due to shorter cropping duration (only 3 to 4 months) than wet season
rice varieties. In order to achieve higher yield, both farmer types from small to extra-large farmneeded to input more material and labor inputs. Furthermore, farmers who did rice farming withthese varieties spend more diesel cost because they did not do harrowing, but they commonly
plowed twice before direct-seeding. Looking at the labor cost, both farmer types who owned large
and extra-large farms seemed to spend on hired labor cost than small farms, who were likely to doby themselves. CH non-owner-farmers had higher rice production cost than CH owner-farmers ineach category because of the high harvesting fee (around 72 USD/ha).
Rice Farming Profitability of Combine Harvester Owner-Farmers and Non-Owner-FarmersⒸ ISERD

155

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2019) 10-2

Net profit of CH owner-farmers and non-owner-farmers in wet season are presented in Table 5.
Average paddy yield of both farmer type ranged from 2.90 ton/ ha to 3.75 ton/ha. The result also
found that extra-large CH owner-farmer gained the highest gross revenue (906 USD/ha) andfollowed by large, small and medium farm. Similarly, extra-large CH non-owner-farmers also
received the highest revenue amounting to 872.90 USD/ha and followed by large (816.60 USD/ha),small (714.57 USD/ha) and medium farm (689.11 USD/ha), respectively.
Looking at the net profit of CH owner-farmers, extra-large farm had the highest amounting to443.65 UDS/ha; and small farm received the lowest profit at 412.47 USD/ha. In addition, small CH
owner-farmer earned almost twice profit than small CH non-owner-farmer.
Table 5 Net profit by type of selected farmers in wet season
Items

CH owner-farmers

Land size

SmallMedium

Large

Number of HH
Paddy yield(ton/ha)
Price (USD/ton)Total cash expense
Total expense
Gross revenue
Gross margin
Net Profit

23.75
220.61
338.32414.81827.27488.95412.4753.30
242.57384.18454.07800.50416.31346.42

63.55
249.21388.89456.52883.57494.69427.05

CH non-owner-farmers
Extralarge
53.60
251.69399.26462.43906.08506.82443.65

Small

MediumLarge

103.10230.51405.35480.20714.57309.22234.3752.90
237.62445.62511.83689.11243.49177.2843.37
241.96446.19513.92816.60370.41302.68Source: Field Survey, 2017

Extralarge
23.75
232.77453.35520.18872.90419.55352.71

Unit = USD/haTable 6 shows the net profit of CH owner-farmers and non-owner-farmers in dry season. Even,
the group of CH owner-farmers in extra-large farm and large farm seemed likely to spend thehighest amount on total rice production cost than other medium and small farm, but they remained
the highest profit after calculation. Similarly, the group of CH non-owner-farmers in large farm
received 424.53 USD/ha; and followed by medium and small farm. As mentioned earlier, inaverage net profit of CH owner-farmer received the highest profitable compared to net profit ofanother group in each category.
Table 6 Net Profit by type of selected farmers in dry season
Items

CH Owner-Farmers

CH Non-Owner-Farmers

Land size

SmallMedium

Large

ExtraLarge

Number of HH
Paddy yield (ton/ha)
Price (USD/ton)Total cash expense
Total Expense
Gross revenue
Gross margin
Net Profit

33.33
232.05397.71471.45773.51375.80302.0711
4.00
235.15404.31472.81940.59536.28467.7894.24
242.78417.14481.951030.47
613.33548.5264.67
247.03423.11486.351152.81729.69666.45

Source: Field Survey, 2017

SmallMediumLarge

93.19
237.28430.27512.86756.92326.65244.06103.90230.82439.82513.21900.19460.37386.9744.00
237.82457.88526.75951.29493.41424.53ExtraLarge
0--Unit = USD/ha

In general, in terms of season, farmers who cultivated irrigated rice varieties in dry season
tend to spend higher on total expense than farmers who cultivated wet season rice varieties.
However, irrigated rice varieties had higher yield than other varieties. Moreover, CH non-ownerfarmers had higher rice production cost than CH owner-farmers in each category.
CONCLUSION
Field survey revealed that farmers started using CH in 2010. Kubota was the main CH brand usedin Battambang Province which had an affordable price and was suitable for harvesting during bothⒸ ISERD

156

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2019) 10-2

wet and dry seasons. The main reasons for CH adoption were (1) have difficulty in securing hired
labor during peak harvesting season, (2) conveniently harvest on time, and (3) can provide custom
service to other farms. Cost and return analysis revealed that it is more profitable to use CH for
both CH owner-farmers and non-owner-farmers in the study area. Besides, CH owner-farmers
received higher profit in comparison to the non-owner-farmers.
This study recommends that farmers shift to CH usage for rice harvesting in order to address
labor shortage, reduce production cost as well as gain more profit. For further study, there is a needto conduct a detailed study on CH custom services and its social impact on rice farmers’ livelihood.
REFERENCES
Banan District. 2016. Annual report for agriculture of 2016 and direction 2017. Battambang, Cambodia.
CARDI. 2013. Annual report 2013. Cambodia Agricultural Research and Development Institute, Cambodia.
Chhim, C., Buth, B. and Ear, S. 2015. Effect of labor movement on agricultural mechanization in Cambodia.
CDRI, Working Paper, Series No. 107, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
MAFF Cambodia. 2016. Annual report for agriculture, forestry and fisheries and direction 2000-2015.
Ministry of Agriculture, Foretsry and Fisheries, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Praweenwongwuthi, S., Laohasiriwong S. and Rambo A. T. 2010. Impacts of rice combine harvesters on
economic and social of farmers in a village of the Tung Kula Ronghai Region. Research Journal ofAgriculture and Biological Sciences, 6 (6), 778-784.
Salassi, M.S. and Deliberto, M.A. 2010. Estimating rice combine harvester cost: Performance rate, capitalcost, operating cost. Staff Report No. 2010-08.
World Bank. 2014. Cambodia-agriculture in transition. 19-42, 15-22.

Ⓒ ISERD157