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

Research article
erd

Farming Practices Assessment and Economic Analysis of
Organic Rice Farming in Cambodia:
Case Study of a Commune in Preah Vihear Province
CHANMONY SOK*
Graduate School of Agriculture, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Japan
Email: Chanmony0223@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 December 2018

Accepted 31 October 2019(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Through the Cambodian government program, adoption of organic rice farming
started in 2003. Although some farmers re-converted back to conventional rice farming,
there are still some farmers who have continued producing organic rice under contract
farming and non contract farming. This study aims to (1) clarify the cultural practices oforganic rice farming; (2) compare the productivity and profitability of organic rice undercontract farming and non-contract farming, and (3) identify the perception of farmers
towards organic rice farming and reasons why they have continued. This study interviewed
85 randomly selected farmers in a commune of Preah Vihear province and further divided
them into three types: 32 contract farmers, 32 non-contract farmers, and 21 organic ricecontract farmers who partly sold produce outside the contract. Results showed that althoughtransplanting and direct-seeding were prevalent, direct-seeding was the most common
practice due to limited labor and rice field location. With regards to productivity andprofitability, organic rice contract farmers had more yield and earned more profit than noncontract farmers. Moreover, farmers practicing transplanting had higher yield than those of
direct-seeding. However, availability of exchange labor seemed to be a critical factor for
farmers to gain profit. The reasons for farmers to continue doing organic rice farming werehigher income, better health and contribution to conserve the environment. The reasons forengaging in contract farming were receiving stable and high price and gaining new
knowledge. This study hopes to initially contribute to the further development of organic
rice farming in Preah Vihear province.
Keywords contract farming, cost and return analysis, cultural practices, organic rice,
perception

INTRODUCTION
In Cambodia, agriculture contributed to 28.6% of GDP (2015), while contribution of rice alone
accounted for 10%. Recently, the demand for organic products (e.g. organic rice) is significantly
increasing due to the increasing number of local people who prefer to consume safe food and live ahealthy lifestyle. Moreover, organic rice production for export to European countries is increasing
year by year. However, the adoption of organic rice practice only started in 2003. Thus, it isundoubtedly a latecomer on the international organic agriculture scene (COrAA, 2011).
Taing (2008) mentioned that social and economic benefits of organic rice farming are not yet
sufficiently clarified. During the first few years, Cambodian rice farmers produced organic ricewith surprising success, and many organic rice cooperatives were established throughout the main
rice production areas in Cambodia. However, many organic rice farmers diminished in scale, andⒸ ISERD

146

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

many organic rice farmers re-converted to conventional farming even though Taing (2008) and Sa(2011) reported that organic farming could increase farmers’ rice yield and profit.
According to Preah Vihear Provincial Department of Agriculture (2017), there are agricultural
cooperatives that still produce organic rice in a natural way without external inputs such fertilizers
and pesticides in Preah Vihear province. In 2017, this province produced almost 30,000 tons oforganic rice from 5,162 smallholder farmers who engaged in contracts with three different privatecompanies (contractors).
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to (1) clarify the cultural practices of organic rice farming; (2) compare theproductivity and profitability of organic rice under contract farming and non-contract farming, and(3) identify the perception of farmers towards organic rice farming and reasons why they havecontinued.
MATERIALS AND METHODSThis study was conducted in a commune of Preah Vihear Province, which is the second largest
agricultural area in Cambodia. The main commodities are rice, rubber, and cashew nuts. It is
located in the Northern area of the country and shares international border with Thailand and Laos.
This province is also considered as the “Kingdom of Organic Rice.” Most people are farmers whogrow rice during wet season only because of no irrigation or canals. On another hand, the selected
commune had a population of 8,296 person (2016) and covered a total area of 36,535 ha of mostly
hilly forest, located 396 km. from Phnom Penh City. This commune was selected because many
farmers are cultivating organic rice (Provincial Department of Agriculture, 2017).
Primary data were collected through questionnaire survey of randomly selected organic rice
farmers and key-informant interviews (e.g. agriculture officers and other stakeholders) in Marchand August 2017. A total of 85 organic rice farmers were interviewed and further divided them into
three types: 32 contract farmers, 32 non-contract farmers, and 21 organic rice contract farmers who
partly sold their produce outside the contract (hereafter, mixed farmers).
Descriptive analysis and cost and return analysis were utilized in this study.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Socio-Economic Characteristics of Selected Organic Farmers
New farmers who engage in contract farming are usually required to pay 50% of certification fee,
while the other 50% is paid by the private company (contractor). However, during the introductionof contract farming in 2017, an NGO extended support to all contract farmers through payment of
the farmer’s share to the certification fee. Moreover, contract farmers were provided organic riceseeds and training sessions on organic rice standards, certification application process, organic
cultivation, and internal control system.
Table 1 Socio-economic characteristics of selected organic farmers (n=85)
Items

Contract farmer

Non-contract farmer

Mixedfarmer1
21.0
34.8
5.5
4.4
18.7

Number of household (HH)
32.0
32.0
Average age (years old)
37.8
39.9
Average family size (person)
5.3
5.7
Average education (years)
4.9
4.7
Average farming experiences (years)
19.8
22.6
Source: Field survey, 2017
Note: Mixed farmers refer to those farmers who engaged in contract farming but sold part of their organic rice produce
outside the contract.
Ⓒ ISERD

147

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

Table 1 shows the general profile of the three groups of farmers. The average household wasabout five members in each group. Non-contract farmers were the oldest and had the longest
farming experience among the groups. On another hand, contract farmers had the highest
educational attainment.
Cultural Practices
The field survey revealed that selected farmers commonly cultivated white rice variety (known as
Neang Om and Neang Ouk in Khmer language). This variety has long maturity (specifically, 8months) and is suitable for wet season and land condition in the study area. Farmers commonly
start land preparation from May and do harvesting between late-November and early December.

Fig. 1 Total land size by farmer type and crop establishment
Source: Field survey, 2017

As shown in Fig. 1, all groups practiced both types of crop establishment (e.g. direct-seeding
and transplanting). Particularly, all farmer respondents preferred direct-seeding due to shortage oflabor and the long distance of rice paddy field from home.
Table 2 Cultivation practices by farmer group and crop establishment

Pre-cultivation

Cultivation

Pre-cultivation

Cultivation
stage
Farm location
Seed (kg/ha)
Land preparation
Seedling age
Space between line and row
Transplant (seedling per hill)
Seedling depth into soil
Weed control
Pest control
Irrigation

Farm location
Seed (kg/ha)
Land preparation
Weed control
Cultivation
Pest control
Irrigation
Source: Field survey, 2017

Transplanting
Contract
farmerNear home
73.95
3 times18- 21 days
20-25 cm
1 seedling
2-3 cm deep
Hoes and hand
Spiders and frogs
RainfedDirect-seeding
Far from home148.28
3 times
Hoes and hand
Spiders and frogs
RainfedⒸ ISERD

148

Non-contract
farmerNear home
78.62
2 timesMore than 20 days
<20cm
2 or 3 seedlings>3cm
Hoes and hand
Spiders and frogs
RainfedMixed
farmerNear home
81.37
Less than 3 times
3 weeks
25-30cm
1 seedling
2-3cm
Hoes and hand
Spiders and frogs
RainfedFar from home
150.03
2 times
Hoes and hand
Spiders and frogs
RainfedFar from home
125.21Less than 3 times
Hoes and hand
Spiders and frogs
RainfedIJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2019) 10-2

It should be noted that non-contract farmers had limited or no special trainings, thus most ofthem followed their own cultivation practice. On the other hand, contract farmers and mixed
farmers attended some short trainings organized by the NGO, agricultural cooperative union and/or
contract companies on organic rice cultivation in order to get international organic certification.
Table 2 shows the differences in cultivation practices by farmer group and crop establishment. The
main differences found were seed input and land preparation. First, non-contract farmers selected
seeds for next production by themselves, so seeds were not genetically selected. The selection was
based on the physical aspect of the rice plant and seed (e.g. thickness and weight). Before sowing,
the unhealthy grains are taken out. However, although contract farmers were initially provided withorganic rice seeds for free by the contractor in 2017, they had the option to buy or keep seeds forthe next cropping. Second, with regards to land preparation, contract farmers did three times, while
non-contract farmers did two times.
During harvesting, all the farmers harvested by hand and sun-dried rice grain on the field. This
practice significantly affected grain quality. All farmers utilized threshing machine.
Production Cost of Organic Rice Farming
The analysis was done separately in three groups namely contract farmer, non-contract farmer, andmixed farmer. Each group was divided into two different kinds of cultivation practices such as
direct-seeding and transplanting. It should be noted that all the cash cost and non-cash cost such as
family labors cost, exchange labors cost, and depreciation cost on farm assets were included in thecalculation. Family labor cost, exchange labor cost, and seeds cost were considered as non-cash
costs. Family or exchange labor cost was estimated as 2.5 USD per person (about half day or 4hours).
Table 3 Total labor cost of organic rice production
Contract farmer
Non-contract farmer
Mixed farmer
Direct-seeding
Transplanting
Direct-seeding
Transplanting
Direct-seeding
Transplanting
Items
Family Exchange Family Exchange Family Exchange Family Exchange Family Exchange Family Exchange
labor
labor
labor
labor
labor
labor
labor
labor
labor
labor
labor
labor
1st plowing
5.75
6.37
5.60
5.98
5.38
5.70
2nd plowing
5.44
5.29
4.98
5.55
Harrowing
2.49
2.53
2.52
2.44
2.36
3.20
Direct-seeding
9.95
9.79
9.73
Transplanting
11.82
108.36
11.66
109.3012.75
105.63
Weeding
34.05
31.79
21.79
29.85
29.21
30.87
Harvesting
13.84
111.16 14.46
110.23 13.22
111.94 12.90
107.28 12.51
106.90 15.03
108.74
Threshing
17.41
5.91 17.10
5.13 15.55
4.35 15.86
4.04 11.64
7.52 10.02
5.59
Transportation
5.21
4.90
5.21
4.98
4.43
3.93
94.14
117.07
94.26
223.7373.67
116.2983.66
220.6280.24
114.41
87.03
219.97
Total
211.21
317.99189.97304.28194.65307.00Source: Field survey, 2017
Unit: USD/ha

Table 3 shows that farmers did not have enough capability to hire and pay many laborers to dotransplanting and harvesting, so farmers commonly used exchange labor. The result of the study
revealed that the total labor cost of contract farming was about 211.21 USD/ha and 317.99 USD/haof direct-seeding and transplanting, respectively. The total labor cost of direct-seeding andtransplanting of contract farming were higher than the other two groups. Harvesting time had thehighest share of labor inputs because it was done by hand.
Table 4 shows that contract farmers and mixed farmers spent higher fuel consumption during
land preparation than non-contract farmers because non-contract farmers did only two times in land
preparation while other groups three times in land preparation. Hand tractor was the highest fixed
cost for all groups. The total fixed cost is equivalent to deprecation cost, which calculated using thestraight-line method of depreciation (Rahman et al., 2013).

Ⓒ ISERD

149

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

Table 4 Total variable cost, fixed cost, and production of organic rice production
Contract farmer
DirectTransplanting
seeding
32
18

Items

NHH
Variable cost
Fuel consumption of 1
1st plowing
5.27
5.38
2nd plowing
4.57
4.47
Harrowing
3.01
2.98
Transportation
9.23
7.20
Seed 2
44.26
22.07
Threshing 3
18.15
19.09
Fixed Cost
Hand-tractor
57.12
54.58
Sickle
0.32
0.27
Hoe
0.58
0.47
Blue sheet
5.53
5.07
Sack
5.03
5.29
Total Labor cost
211.21
317.99Total production cost
364.28444.87
Source: Field survey, 2017
Note:1. Diesel cost was 0.7 USD per 1L.
2. Seed cost was 0.3USD per kg.
3. Threshing cost 1/30 of total production paddy rice.

Non-contract farmer
DirectTransplanting
seeding31
22

Mixed farmer
DirectTransplanting
seeding
21
13

5.45
2.99
9.53
44.79
16.94

5.38
2.98
7.83
23.47
17.36

5.31
4.60
3.05
9.10
37.38
17.19

5.45
4.53
3.02
7.83
24.29
17.56

66.57
0.34
0.55
5.61
4.69
194.79352.24

53.81
0.33
0.56
4.36
4.81
309.26430.14

62.32
0.31
0.51
5.56
4.76
194.65344.74

54.80
0.33
0.56
4.36
4.86
307.00434.60
Unit: USD/ha

Productivity and Profitability of Organic Rice Production
Regarding profitability, this study examined several indicators such as gross revenue, total cash
income, and net profit of organic rice production in each group. Gross revenue was calculated byyield (tons/ha) multiplied with the price (USD/ton). There are two different ways to examine
profitability such as net profit which was calculated by gross revenue minus total production cost,
and total cash income which was calculated by gross revenue minus total production cost andminus non-cash cost. The cost of certification was not included in the calculation because no
farmer paid since it was subsidized by the contractor and NGO.
Table 5 Net profit of organic rice farming production
Contract farmer
Items

Directseeding

Transplanting

Yield (tons/ha)

2.19
243.47533.0584.50
68.58
211.21
255.47364.28424.24168.772.30
242.38557.9061.20
65.68
317.99340.06444.87453.09113.04

Paddy price (USD/ton)

Gross revenue
Total variable cost
Total fixed cost
Total labor cost
Total noncash cost 1
Total production cost
Total cash income2
Net profit 3

Non-contract farmer
Directseeding

2.04
185.52379.1379.69
77.76
194.79234.75352.24261.6426.89

Transplanting

2.09
184.94387.2657.02
63.86
309.26327.75430.14284.87(42.87)

Source: Field survey, 2017
Note: 1. Total noncash cost = Seed cost+ Labor cost
2.Total cash income = Gross revenue - (Total production cost -Total noncash cost)
3.Net profit = Gross revenue - Total production cost

Mixed farmer
Directseeding

2.07
208.78432.74
76.62
73.46
194.65232.03344.74320.0388.00

Transplanting

2.12
203.32430.6662.69
64.91
307.00331.29434.60327.35(3.94)
Unit: USD/ha

Table 5 shows that contract farmers received the highest price and yield among the groups on
both cultivations. These are the reasons why contract farmers could generate gross revenue morethan other farmer groups. Even contract farmers had higher production cost than others, contract
farmers still earned higher net profit and cash income. Ingeneral, farmers earned higher total nonⒸ ISERD150

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

cash income in transplanting than direct-seeding. On the other hand, farmers could earn more net
profit in direct-seeding rather than transplanting because transplanting need much more labor
requirement. Moreover, non-contract farmers and mixed farmers were not able generate net profit
in transplanting.
Farmer Perception
In general, the main reasons for farmers to engage in organic rice were no fertilizer expense, receive
high price, and have healthy farming life. With regards to their perception of contract farming, eachgroup had different reasons. Contract farmers engaged in contract farming because they could receive
stable and high price, learn new techniques, and share experiences with other farmers. On the other
hand, non-contract farmers did not believe on contract farming system, and they preferred to easilysell to many buyers at different prices with no restrictions. For mixed farmers, they engaged incontract farming to learn new techniques but were not sure if their produce will be regularly sold at ahigh price.
CONCLUSION
This research found the existence of three types of farmers, namely contract farmers, non-contract
farmers and mixed farmers. All farmers cultivated organic rice once a year, particularly during wet
season. With regards to crop establishment, direct-seeding was more practiced than transplanting
because of lesser labor requirement. Harvesting was commonly done by hand.
With regards to profitability, all organic rice farmers earned positive total cash income, but
contract farmers got the highest income. In general, contract farmers on both cultivations canincrease their income with higher yield and higher price compared to other farmers. Transplanting
cultivation can produce higher yield but require more labor inputs than direct-seeding. In casefarmers do exchange labor, transplanting can give farmers more profit. In contrast, if there are no
exchange labors, it is better for farmers to do direct-seeding with less labor input.
Although the main reasons for farmers to engage in organic rice were the same (e.g. no
fertilizer expense, receive high price, and have healthy farming life), their perception of contract
farming varied. Contract farmers engaged in contract farming because they could receive stable andhigh price, learn new techniques, and share experiences with other farmers. On the other hand, noncontract farmers did not believe on contract farming system, and they preferred to easily sell tomany buyers at different prices with no restrictions.
For further study, there is a need to assess the existing organic rice certification and contract
farming models, specifically clarify the impact of organic rice contract farming model to smallscale farmers’ livelihoods; and to determine the most suitable organic rice contract farming model.
REFERENCES
Cambodian Organic Agriculture Association. 2011. Organic agriculture and food processing in Cambodia:
Status and potentials. Cambodian Organic Agriculture Association, 5, Cambodia.
MAFF Cambodia. 2016. Annual report 2016. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Cambodia.
Preah Vihear Provincial Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery. 2017. Annual report 2017.
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 9-13, Cambodia.
Rahman, A. Latifunnahar, M. and Alam, M. 2013. Financial management for custom hire service of tractor in
Bangladesh. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 6 (3), 29.
Sa, K. 2011. Organic rice farming systems in Cambodia: Socio-economic impact of smallholder systems in
Takeo Province. International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development, 2 (1), 115-119.
Taing, K. 2008. Economic analysis of organic-culture rice in rural household economy: Case studies in Tram
Kork and Chumkiri district. Master thesis, Royal University of Agriculture, 66-72, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Ⓒ ISERD

151