IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

Research article
erdRubber Farmers’ Perception of Rubber Technologies inDambae and Peam Cheang, Kampong Cham
SOVANN AUN
Graduate School of Agricultural Sciences, Royal University of Agriculture, Cambodia
Cambodian Rubber Research Institute, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Email: ausovann@yahoo.com

VISALSOK TOUCH
University of Battambang, Battambang Province, Cambodia

VATHANA SAN
Council for Agriculture and Rural Development, Council of Minister, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

TORY CHHUN
Graduate School of Agricultural Sciences, Royal University of Agriculture, Cambodia
Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences, Tsukuba, Japan
Received 13 December 2009

Accepted 5 March 2010

Abstract The main objectives of the study were to 1) determine the level of the farmers’
awareness of recommended technologies related to rubber tapping and 2) identify thefarmers’ perceptions of rubber technologies. A multistage random sampling technique wasused to select the sample of 92 rubber smallholders from Dambae, a non traditional rubber
region, and Peam Cheang, a traditional rubber region. Data were collected through pocket
voting and preference ranking which are the tools of participatory methodology.
Friedman’s test and multiple comparisons were used to analyze the data. The study
showed that rubber farmers were not well aware of recommended technologies related torubber tapping, for instance required girth (23%), height of measurement (34%), cup
hanging (46%), thickness of tapping (21%) and tapping angle (21%). However, theawareness of tapping panel marking was high (97%). It was discovered that there weresignificant differences in the participants’ rank ordered preferences for techniques, during
immature and mature stages, related to rubber collection works and dissemination media(p<0.001). Establishment of cover crop, land preparation, correct tapping method and latexpreservation methods were considered by the rubber smallholders as the most important
techniques (p<0.05) that they need the extension officers to address in designing extension
activity programs for these regions. Workshop was the most preferred area (p<0.05) ofdissemination media through which the rubber farmers need the researchers and extension
officers to transfer information and knowledge.
Keywords pocket voting, preference ranking, participatory method, Friedman’s testINTRODUCTION
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) is a family of approaches and methods to enable local people
to present, share and analyze their knowledge of life and conditions in order to plan, to act, tomonitor and evaluate the situations. There has been increasing interest in PRA as it has beensuccessful on many occasions in planning and decision support since its development in the late1980s. An extensive review on the evolution, methods and practices of PRA can be found inChambers (1994). Unfortunately, PRA has not been used for research on rubber smallholding inCambodia. It has been found that the Cambodian smallholder rubber yield is very low (845kg/ha/year) compared with the average smallholder rubber yield of other countries (Sovann, 2009).
Malaysian smallholder rubber yield is 1047 kg/ha/year and for Thailand, 1530 kg/ha/year© ISERD25

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1(Pondikou, 2005). The low rubber yield is attributed to poor plantation management, use of
conventional clones, low fertility of soil, use of old tapping systems, poor skill of the tappers andpoor knowledge of rubber smallholders on rubber management techniques. To improve theknowledge of rubber smallholders’ onrubber management techniques is an important factor inincreasing the rubber yield. A better result can be achieved by collaboration with the farmers andby means of understanding their needs. Therefore, the topic “Rubber farmers’ perception of rubber
technologies in Dambae and Peam Cheang, Kampong Cham” is an important study.
The specific objectives of the study were 1) to determine the level of farmers’ awareness ofrecommended technologies related to rubber tapping and 2) to identify farmers’ perceptions ofrubber technologies.
METHODOLOGYThis study was conducted in Peam Cheang and Dambae regions. Peam Cheang is located on thesouthern side of Kampong Cham and Dambae is on the Northern side of this province. A total of
92 rubber smallholders were selected. A multi-stage random sampling technique was used forsample selection from the two regions. Actual data collection used a variety of participatory
methods such as, pocket voting and preference ranking. The study was conducted from September
16 to November 25, 2008.
Pocket voting was used to find the level of the smallholders’ awareness of recommended
technologies related to rubber tapping. Awareness on correct tapping practices among thesmallholders was assessed using 12 questions with multiple choice answers. When all had voted,
the slips were taken out from each pocket and the votes were registered (Wasana et al., 2006).
Preference ranking was used to identify the farmers’ perception of areas for which the techniques
were needed and preferred dissemination media. Preference ranking was done by individualfarmers, where a set of options was ranked according to their perception.
All data gathered from the pocket voting were analyzed using frequency and percentage
statistics. Number of votes for the correct answer was awareness on correct tapping practices.
Friedman’s test (Fr.) was used for the analysis of preference ranking. When the number of rows
and/or columns is large, it can be shown that the statistic Fr. is distributed approximately as chisquare (χ2) with d.f. = k-1 (Abeyasekera, 2001). SPSS version 12 was employed in this analysis.
For the options above the null and alternative hypotheses are given below:
H0 = There is no difference in the participants’ rank ordered preferences for techniques during
each stage of rubber and dissemination media.
H1 = There is a difference in the participants’ rank ordered preferences for techniques during
each stage of rubber and dissemination media.
Afterwards, multiple comparisons were made using the following inequality (Siegel andCastellan, 1988).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Farmers’ awareness of recommended technologies related to rubber tapping
According to the results given in Fig. 1, the farmers’ overall awareness of recommended
technologies related to rubber tapping was moderate (54 %). The overall awareness of Sri Lankan
rubber farmers of recommended rubber technologies of 55% to 58% was similar (Wasana et al.,2006). The plausible reasons for this moderate awareness could be traced to: a) the very low
intensity of extension services provided by relevant research and development bodies. 83% of therubber farmers responded that researchers and extension workers had never visited their regions(Sovann, 2009); b) Lack of funds to support the institutions related to the rubber smallholder
development. The rubber farmers lacked the necessary knowledge of tapping techniques especiallybark thickness of tapping and tapping angle (21%). When bark consumption has been excessive,
capital value is lost through reduced economic life span of trees.
© ISERD

26

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–154

Overall awarenessOverall awareness of tech. tapping
Overall awareness of basic tapping
Thickness of tapping
Tapping depth
Tapping angle
Correct time of tapping
Cup hanging
Tapping system
Frequency of tapping
Tapping panel marking
Correct height of tapping panel
Height of measurement
Required girth
Required number of tappable trees

35602164215946847097593423700204060

80

100%

Fig. 1 Farmers’ awareness of aspects of tapping technologies
Farmers’ perceptions of rubber technologies during the immature stage of rubber trees
The rubber techniques used during the immature stage of trees that the smallholders selected forextension activity were land preparation, establishment of cover crops, fertilizer application,weeding and disease control. It was found that at least one treatment comparison was significantlydifferent (χ2 =73.63, d.f =4, p<0.001, Table 1). The rubber farmers considered that land preparationand the establishment of cover crops were the most important techniques (lowest rank sum) andweeding was the least important (highest rank sum) during the immature stage that they needed toknow (p< 0.05, Table 2).
Table 1 Friedman's Test of smallholders’ rank of techniques in different stages anddissemination media
Parameter
N
Chi-Squared.fAsymp. Sig

Immature stage
92
73.63040.000Mature stage
92
101.49640.000

Collection works92
31.37020.000

Dissemination media
92122.922
40.000

Table 2 Rank sums of smallholders’ perception of different techniques
during the immature stage of rubber
Technique
1 Land preparation
2 Cover crop
3 Fertilizer application
5 Disease control
4 Weeding

Mean rank
2.20
2.68
2.83
3.21
4.09

Sum of ranks*
202a247
ab260
ab295b376
c*Sums of ranks with different letters are significantly different (p<0.05)
Highest priority for the lowest rank sum

This was consistent with Wasana et al. (2006) who reported that land preparation was also
considered as important by the rubber smallholders in the Badalkumbura area of Sri Lanka. In 2005,
the International Rubber Research and Development Board recommended zero burning concepts
for rubber plantation establishment (Abdul, 2005). Burning the field causes the microbial
populations to die and loss of organic matter in the vegetation. Farmers therefore wanted to know
more about the zero burning method for establishing the rubber plantation. At the immature period,
the rubber trees are not yet tapped and the rubber farmers do not have income, so it is only the© ISERD27

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

cover crops planted between the rows of rubber trees that the rubber farmers can earn money from.
In addition, farmers want to know which cover crops give the biggest profit and the impact of thecover crops has on the rubber growth. Accordingly, land preparation and establishing of cover crop
were priority techniques.
Farmers’ perceptions of rubber technologies during mature stage of rubber
The management techniques during the mature stage of rubber that the smallholders selected forextension activity programs included marking panel, correct tapping method, fertilizer application,weeding and disease control. It was found that at least one treatment comparison was significantlydifferent (χ2 =101.496, d.f =4, p<0.001, Table 3). According to multiple comparisons, the rubber
techniques used during the mature period can be categorized into 3 groups as proposed in Table 3(p<0.05). The rubber smallholders have considered correct tapping method to be the mostimportant technique (lowest rank sum) and fertilizer application to be the least important (highestrank sum). The main reasons for choosing correct tapping method were sustainable production,
good health of rubber trees, reasonable consumption of bark and high quality of rubber. Alcala et al.
(2005) concluded that a poor tapping system was also the most important factor to make rubber tree
yield very low in the Philippines.
Table 3 Rank sums of smallholders’ perception of different techniques during the rubber
mature stage
Technique
2 Correct tapping method
1 Marking panel
5 Disease control
4 Weeding
3 Fertilizer application

Sum of ranks*157
a275
b275b306b367
cPriorityHighModerate
Moderate
Moderate
Low*Sums of ranks with the different letters are significantly different (p<0.05)
Highest priority for the lowest rank sum

Rubber collection works
The techniques related to rubber collection that the smallholders selected for extension activity
programs included preservation method, coagulation method and stocking method. It was foundthat at least one treatment comparison was significantly different (χ2 =31.37, d.f = 2, p<0.001,Table 1). According to multiple comparisons, the management techniques related to the rubbercollection can be categorized into 2 groups as proposed in Table 4 (p<0.05). The rubber
smallholders considered latex preservation method as the most important technique (lowest ranksum) that they need to know, and stocking and coagulation methods as the least important (highestrank sum). The main reasons for choosing the latex preservation method as most important wereprice of latex and the distance between their rubber plantations and the rubber processing factory.
Table 4 Rank sums of smallholders’ perception of different techniques related to the rubbercollection works
Technique

Sum of ranks*Priority

1 Preservation method143aHigh

3 Stocking method

191bLow

2 Coagulation method

218b

Low

*Sums of ranks with the different letters are significantly different (p<0.05)
Highest priority for the lowest rank sum© ISERD28

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

Farmers still think that the rubber coagulum they sold is not rated on the quality but its weight.
It was the same in Indonesia (Akiefnawati and Joshi, 2006). It was for this reason, that
smallholders in these study regions considered that the coagulation method and the stocking
method were the least important techniques.
DISSEMINATION MEDIA
The media that the smallholders preferred for dissemination were lectures, workshops, video
documentary, radio programs and newspaper supplements. It was found that at least one treatmentcomparison was significant difference (χ2 = 122.922, d.f = 4, p<0.001, Table 1). According tomultiple comparisons, the dissemination media can be categorized into 3 groups as proposed inTable 5 (p<0.05). The rubber smallholders considered workshops as the most preferred type(lowest rank sum) of dissemination media and radio programs as the least important (highest ranksum). The rest of the dissemination media were considered as moderately important. It was thesame in Sri Lanka (Wasana et al., 2006). The main reasons for not preferring mass media were due
to absence of discussion, inappropriate time of broadcasting and lack of delivery means. The rubber
smallholders preferred workshops because they thought that in workshops they could easily discuss
their specific problems and share their knowledge and experience.
Table 5 Rank sum of smallholders’ perception of different dissemination media
Dissemination media
2 Workshops
5 Newspaper supplements
3 Video documentary
1 Lectures
4 Radio programs

Sum of ranks*
150a260b276b317
bc377
cPriority
HighModerate
Moderate
Moderatelow*Sums of ranks with the different letters are significantly different (p<0.05)
Highest priority for the lowest rank sum

CONCLUSION
The study showed that the rubber farmers’ awareness of tapping techniques was poor. The
awareness of tapping angle and bark thickness of tapping was only 21%. This poor awareness has
made an impact on the economic life span of rubber trees, yield and income stability. This study
has opened up the need for an awareness program on tapping rubber trees. Following analysis ofresults, it was concluded that there were differences in the participants’ rank ordered preferences
for techniques during each stage of rubber growth and for dissemination media (p<0.001). At theimmature period, the rubber farmers considered that land preparation and the establishment ofcover crops were the most important techniques that the rubber smallholders need to know about.
The smallholders gave least priority to weeding. According to the study on smallholders’perception of different techniques during rubber mature stage, the smallholders considered correct
tapping method as the most important technique. Fertilizer application has been considered by thefarmers as the least important. Among the techniques related to rubber collection methods, thesmallholder considered the latex preservation method as the most important technique that required
awareness raising. Rubber stocking and coagulation methods were considered by rubber
smallholders as less important areas for awareness raising. Based on the results of the study,
workshops were nominated by the rubber farmers as the most preferred area of dissemination andradio programs were considered as the least important. Establishment of cover crop, landpreparation, correct tapping method and latex preservation method were the most importanttechniques which should be addressed in designing extension programs for the study areas.
Workshops were the most preferred area of dissemination media through which researchers andextension officers can transfer the above techniques to farmers.

© ISERD

29

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution made by H.E. Siphan Men, Ex Director general ofPeam Cheang Rubber Plantation, Mr. Reth Iv and Mr. Sitho Lim who were the personnel of Peam
Cheang Rubber Plantation.

REFERENCES
Abdul Aziz, S.A. (2005) Overview on the future of the natural rubber industry in the millennium.
Proceedings of the International Rubber Conference, Philippines.
Abeyasekera, S. (2001) Analysis approaches in participatory work involving rank or scores. Statistical
Services Centre, the University of Reading, UK.
Akiefnawati, R. and Joshi, L. (2006) Improving quality of rubber and market mechanism at the farmer levelin Bungo, Jambi province, Indonesia.
Alcala, T.B., Taposok, L.A., Testado, A.M. and Testado, R.A. (2005) Assessment of the status, problems andconstraint of the Philippine rubber smallholders. Proceedings of the International Rubber Conference,Philippines.
Chambers, R. (1994) The origins and practice of participatory rural Appraisal, World Development, 53-969.
Pondikou, P.T. (2005) Some salient issues of the rubber smallholding sector. Proceedings of the International
Rubber Conference, Philippines.
Siegel, S. and Castellan, N.J. (1988) Nonparametric Statistics for Behavioral Sciences. McGraw Hill, USA.
Sovann Aun (2009) Assessment of rubber smallholding status. Journal of Agricultural Sciences and RuralDevelopment, Royal University of Agriculture, Cambodia.
Wasana, W., Anura, D., Mahinda, W., Keminda, H. and Jagath, E. (2006) Participatory methods fordevelopment of the smallholder rubber sector in Sri Lanka. Preprints of Paper, International Natural
Rubber Conference, Vietnam.

© ISERD30